Man Based Global Warming....

Here in Illinois, the paper today said that December will be the first month to be below average since April I think it is. You can't look solely at a short variation and extrapolate for the long term. (Weather/climate distinction, already much discussed). You could look at the active hurricane season this year instead if you wanted - a major hurricane each month according to another article I read (I don't have time now to look these up). That backs up some climate predictions, but one season isn't the complete story.

Finally, we're at the minimum for the 11-year solar cycle. As we all know, the sun is the primary driver of our climate and the sun-spot cycle is a well known phenomena. If there was any time for our weather to be colder than average, this is the winter for it. Solar variation doesn't detract from the fact that AGW can still be an additional influence on the climate. It is one of many influences, but one that didn't exist 200 years ago, so it can push us into a climate pattern that isn't conducive to a good economy & stable society, which are adapted for our current climate and food production.

 

About the cherry-picking of data, you could also look at southern Europe, instead of northern Europe. My wife is from the Balkans, and they've had summer-like temperatures for much of December, no prolonged cold spells there.

Also this link is interesting, especially the article for Dec. 17, but I need to get back to work, haven't read it all thru yet.
AccuWeather.com: Global Warming News, Science, Myths, Articles

 

Hi All,

This weather just shows how much the Gulf Stream impacts our climate. With global warming, during the late summer and fall, the melting north polar ice is shutting down the Gulf Stream, through desalination of the water at the northern reaches of the stream. Normally, the warmer water causes evaporation which causes the water to become saltier at the northern reaches of the stream, and it then sinks, and flows south along the coast of Europe and Aftrica. With desalination due to fresh water melt in the Artic, the water does not become salty, and evaporation is greatly reduced by the cooling effect of ice melt water. So, at the northern reaches of the stream, the water no longer sinks. And flow from the caribean north is stopped.

The gulf stream is not just a flow of water, but a flow of heat. And without that heat being pumped up into the north European waters, and picked up by the atmosphere, by the time the winds wrap around to the USA we get extreme cold. As the heat is not flowed out of the 0 to 30 degree north regions of the Atlantic, that area is prone to more violent storms in the summer.

So, if anything, the theory's predictions are running true.

Yes, you can blame global warming for this extreme cold. Its only once all of the Artic ice is gone will the Gulf Stream be reliable again. But, then summers will be very hot, because there wont be any cooling winds off the ice.

The climate change for the north eastern quarter of the US looks to be 90 F summers and 0 F winters for the next 10 years, or so. Then 100 F summers, and 32 F winters after that.

 

Hi Nerfer,

This might be explained by the Golf Stream reorienting to sink off the coast of Span, rather than in the Iceland Gap. The warmth is then transported eastward across the Mediteranean to the Balkans and north east from there to European Rusia (Moscow) which has also had a warm winter so far this year.

 

Yes, as you point out, the cold weather in many areas is consistent with the notion of man based climate change. The changes cause an increase in the average temperature, plus local extremes. This means that periods of unusually cold weather will be more common. The opposite is also true. We should expect to see more freaky weather as time goes by.

Tom

 

Climate is about the weather averaged over long time periods and large areas.

There's an intelligent discussion of 2008 global average temperature on realclimate.org:

RealClimate

NASA GISTEMP puts 2008 (as climate scientists measure it, December 1997 to November 2008) as the 9th warmest year in their records. Realclimate puts the impact of the solar minimum at about -0.05 degrees centigrade, and the impact of the La Nina conditions as somewhat large but not hugely so (maybe -0.1 degrees centigrade). Reading between the lines, it's a fair bet that as the solar cycle progresses away from the minimum and we move out of La Nina conditions, we should expect some faster-than-trend warming over the next few years. But, of course, because the year-to-year variation in global average temperature is large compared to any underlying trend, it's not possible to project what will happen in any given year.

As for global warming causing extreme weather, or slowing the gulf stream, I'd say the jury's still out on that, unless I see evidence to support it. The only one of those that I happen to believe in is lake effect snow. That comes from the interaction of warm water and cold air, and as the Great Lakes warm, it seems reasonable to expect more of it.

 

You won't live long enough to see it, or at least you won't know if you are seeing it. That's the trouble with discussing weather as related to climate. It takes so many years of weather data to understand climate that it exceeds our puny life spans.

That's why we use modeling. Most of the climate models show weather extremes increasing with global climate change. Of course who knows if the models are correct. I'll let you know in a one hundred years or so.

Tom

 

To all you naysayers out there,, if you are going to cherry pick your data to support your cause, at the very least, PLEASE , know and understand the difference between weather and climate!

You might also consider the summer reports from the same location you cite in the winter!

Just because your paranoid doesn't mean your not being followed!

Icarus

 

If only the press would be so careful as to follow your advice. Can't count how many times the press has screamed about the warming arctic without mentioning the cooling antarctic, as just one example of many. Certainly Berman's points are anecdotal as well. But the climate does seem to have changed since the late '90s. It would appear that at a minimum, global temperatures seem to have stabilized, perhaps even declined. It is probably too early to tell. But if we have a few more years on the current track it will be increasingly difficult to claim the planet is warming.

See here.

 

For me, a big theory killer would be a lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and average temperature. The average temperatures have always fluctuated, perhaps even cycled, but have trended up through the industrial years of man in lockstep with CO2 levels. If CO2 levels drop and the average temperature continues to rise, or the other way around, then that would cause me to reconsider. Unfortunately it takes a long time forward to verify any climate changes. It's easier looking back because of historical evidence. I'm not sure I will live long enough to see any conclusive evidence.

Tom

 

Two quick points. First, there is a significant lag time between emission and effect. The environment is paying the price now for emissions decades ago. The cause and effect are that hard to quantify over shorter time frames. Humans are so caught up in their own time scales.

Second, doesn't it make sense to limit emissions into the environment even if the effects are not 100% demonstrable? You people who want to not limit emissions until it is "proven" that they cause harm are borrowing a debt from you children and their children that they may not be able to pay. It seems that the only honest thing to do is be the best stewards of the planet we can and err on the side of caution.

Icarus

 

I'm not so sure "lockstep" is very accurate. Here (attached) is the temp data since the period of satellite measurement. What is interesting is that the bulk of the warming during this period has occurred in a "step" after 1998. This step is highly unlikely to be a result of CO2. Now if you look at the slope of the lines pre/post 1998, there is a slope of about 0.6 C per century. You might attribute ALL of this rise to CO2. And you could be right - or not.

I think it is likely that some of the background warming of 0.6 C / century is a result of increases in CO2 - but probably not all of it. More importantly, you can surmise that the dominate factor in temperature increases of the past 30 years has been some unknown factor that has caused global temperatures to jump by about 0.3 C in the post 1998 period. After this, temperatures have again been relatively stable, just as the were in the pre-1998 period.

 

The period since satellite measurement is too short a period to be very useful. You need to go back at least 150 years.

This chart is of a more useful period:



Tom

 

Climate change in graphs:

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations:


Global temperature averages:




Glacier retreat calibrated temperatures


Solar cycle variations:


And the most recent aggregate graph with 16 different sources:





Any questions?

 

Hi dbermandmd,

You provided cherry picked data. And I gave you a cherry picked explanation. Since you are proposing the extraordinary, you have to provide the evidence to the contrary.

Looks like the evidence provided by Alric all goes against your hypothesis (that a few weeks of extra cold weather in North America disproves global warming), however.

 

I look at this graph and say: "Global warming is a real problem."







I look at this graph and say: "Global warming might be a problem."






I look at this graph and say: "Why do humans always think we are so special?"





As to computer models:

My weatherman can't accurately tell me on Monday if it is going to rain on Saturday.

He also can't tell me where a Hurricane is going to hit 5 days from now.

A climate model can't tell me if the next El Nino is going to strong or weak, 4 years from now.

However, I'm suppose to have faith in a model that predicts global temperature 100 years from now?

 

OFF to AGW HELL with you!

 

You are describing an effect of scale. Note how the scale gets larger and larger as go farther back in time. The issue is that temperature is increasing in a timescale that has not been documented for the past 2K years. It is also contrary to what climate scientists would expect in the absence of increased levels of C02.

It is not a matter if the climate has ever changed. The question is what happens if it is changing now, and if our civilization can weather it.