Arctic ice melt sets stage for cold weather

Jun 06, 2012 By Anne Ju
Severe winter weather outbreaks are more likely due in part to the seemingly far-off problem of melting sea ice in the Arctic.

(Phys.org) -- The dramatic melt-off of Arctic sea ice due to climate change is hitting closer to home than millions of Americans might think. That's because melting Arctic sea ice can trigger a domino effect leading to increased odds of severe winter weather outbreaks in the Northern Hemisphere's middle latitudes -- think the "Snowmageddon" storm that hamstrung Washington, D.C., during February 2010.

Cornell's Charles H. Greene, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences, and Bruce C. Monger, senior research associate in the same department, detail this phenomenon in a paper published in the June issue of the journal Oceanography.

"Everyone thinks of climate change as this remote phenomenon that has little effect on our everyday lives," Greene said. "But what goes on in the Arctic remotely forces our weather patterns here."

Negative conditions are associated with higher pressure in the Arctic and a weakened polar vortex (yellow arrows). A weakened jet stream (black arrows) is characterized by larger-amplitude meanders in its trajectory and a reduction in the wave speed of those meanders.

A warmer Earth increases the melting of sea ice during summer, exposing more dark ocean water to . This causes increased absorption of and excess summertime heating of the ocean -- further accelerating the ice melt. The excess heat is released to the atmosphere, especially during the autumn, decreasing the temperature and atmospheric pressure gradients between the Arctic and middle latitudes.

Arctic ice melt sets stage for cold weather
Negative Arctic Oscillation conditions are associated with higher pressure in the Arctic and a weakened polar vortex (yellow arrows). A weakened jet stream (black arrows) is characterized by larger-amplitude meanders in its trajectory and a reduction in the wave speed of those meanders.

A diminished latitudinal is linked to a weakening of the winds associated with the polar vortex and jet stream. Since the normally retains the cold Arctic air masses up above the Arctic Circle, its weakening allows the cold air to invade lower latitudes.

The recent observations present a new twist to the Arctic Oscillation (AO) -- a natural pattern of in the . Before humans began warming the planet, the Arctic's climate system naturally oscillated between conditions favorable and those unfavorable for invasions of cold Arctic air.

Greene says, "What's happening now is that we are changing the climate system, especially in the Arctic, and that's increasing the odds for the negative AO conditions that favor cold air invasions and severe outbreaks.

"It's something to think about given our recent history," Greene continued. This past winter, an extended cold snap descended on central and eastern Europe in mid-January, with temperatures approaching -22 Fahrenheit and snowdrifts reaching rooftops. And, of course, there were the record snowstorms fresh in the memories of residents from several eastern U.S. cities, such as Washington, New York and Philadelphia, as well as many other parts of the Eastern Seaboard during the previous two years.

But wait -- Greene and Monger's paper is being published just after one of the warmest winters in the eastern U.S. on record. How does that relate?

"It's a great demonstration of the complexities of our climate system and how they influence our regional weather patterns," Greene said. In any particular region, many factors can have an influence, including the El Nino/La Nina cycle. This winter, La Nina in the Pacific shifted undulations in the jet stream so that while many parts of the Northern Hemisphere were hit by the severe winter expected during a bout of negative AO conditions, much of the eastern United States basked in the warm tropical air that swung north with the jet stream.

"It turns out that while the eastern U.S. missed out on the cold and snow this winter, and experienced record-breaking warmth during March, many other parts of the Northern Hemisphere were not so fortunate," Greene said. Europe and Alaska experienced record-breaking winter storms, and the global average temperature during March 2012 was cooler than any other March since 1999.

"A lot of times people say, 'Wait a second, which is it going to be -- more snow or more warming?' Well, it depends on a lot of factors, and I guess this was a really good winter demonstrating that," Greene said. "What we can expect, however, is the Arctic wildcard stacking the deck in favor of more severe winter outbreaks in the future."

Explore further: Viruses take down massive algal blooms, with big implications for climate

Related Stories

Europe hammered by winter, is North America next?

Feb 17, 2012

For the first half of this year's winter, the big news was warm temperatures and lack of snow. Ski resorts were covered in bare dirt, while January temperatures in southern California topped July highs.

Cold winters caused by warmer summers, research suggests

Jan 12, 2012

Scientists have offered up a convincing explanation for the harsh winters recently experienced in the Northern Hemisphere; increasing temperatures and melting ice in the Arctic regions creating more snowfall in the autumn ...

Recommended for you

Severe drought is causing the western US to rise

2 hours ago

The severe drought gripping the western United States in recent years is changing the landscape well beyond localized effects of water restrictions and browning lawns. Scientists at Scripps Institution of ...

A NASA satellite double-take at Hurricane Lowell

2 hours ago

Lowell is now a large hurricane in the Eastern Pacific and NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites double-teamed it to provide infrared and radar data to scientists. Lowell strengthened into a hurricane during the ...

Arctic sea ice influenced force of the Gulf Stream

4 hours ago

The force of the Gulf Stream was significantly influenced by the sea ice situation in the Fram Strait in the past 30,000 years. Scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine ...

User comments : 71

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RobPaulG
1.9 / 5 (30) Jun 06, 2012
Another joke article.
English-Scientific
3.7 / 5 (23) Jun 06, 2012
Perhaps you can point us to your article RobPaulG.
PStrand
2 / 5 (23) Jun 06, 2012
It's hard time for the climatologist community. No warming for over 15 years. Sea ice extent near normal in the north and above in the south.
Nice try using weasel words to make cooling seem to be caused by warming.
The money flow most keep rolling in to the climate institutions.
Can't admit it is the Sun! Search for "Neural Network Used For Climate Change Calculations!" in Google
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (22) Jun 06, 2012
Actually the joke is the size of RobPaul's brain. Sorry, but the article is just a logical conclusion of years of weather study and data collection. If you can't take the AGW heat, then move to the tropics.
rubberman
3.9 / 5 (25) Jun 06, 2012
I love when people say intelligent things like - "No warming for over 15 years." This takes us back to the year BEFORE the warmest year on record (1998)which would be 1997, all the years following 1997 have been warmer than 1997....this type of pure genius doesn't usually come under the handle of PStrand....
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (29) Jun 06, 2012
rubberman: all the years following 1997 have been warmer than 1997


HADCRUT3

1997 0.352
1999 0.297 - Nope. Not Warmer than 1997.
2000 0.271 - Nope. Not Warmer than 1997.
2008 0.325 - Nope. Not Warmer than 1997.
2011 0.339 - Nope. Not Warmer than 1997.

http://www.cru.ue...t3gl.txt

Maybe one day rubberman will say something factual ...
rubberman
3.9 / 5 (22) Jun 06, 2012
rubberman: all the years following 1997 have been warmer than 1997


HADCRUT3

1997 0.352
1999 0.297 - Nope. Not Warmer than 1997.
2000 0.271 - Nope. Not Warmer than 1997.
2008 0.325 - Nope. Not Warmer than 1997.
2011 0.339 - Nope. Not Warmer than 1997.

http://www.cru.ue...t3gl.txt

Maybe one day rubberman will say something factual ...


I knew that was you, who else would say something that stupid...
Here is a link to one of hundreds of reputable sources of info regarding global average annual temperature. The only year since 2000 NOT in the top ten is of course 1998.

http://www.nasa.g...mps.html

So it's cooling today is it? Or are you on an AM/PM schedule for contradicting your own arguments today?
rubberman
4 / 5 (20) Jun 06, 2012
After a double check I did lie, 1999 and 2000 were cooler than 1997, 2011 tied 1997. Sorry. 10 out of 15 years since 97 were warmer.

http://www.ncdc.n.../2011/13

NotParker
2 / 5 (26) Jun 06, 2012
Of course you lied. You people are so brainwashed ....

As for NCDC ... they run hot. 2008 was COLD globally.

And on the satellite record too:

http://www.woodfo...rom:1997
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (24) Jun 06, 2012
From 1997 slight downward trend.

http://www.woodfo...rom:1997

RSS a little more of a downward slope.

http://www.woodfo...rom:1997

GISTEMP shows a ridiculous upward trend, but many years a lot colder than 1997.

2008 was a full .1C colder than 1997

http://www.woodfo...rom:1997
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (22) Jun 06, 2012
If there has been no warming then why is the trend line in global temperatures positive?

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

"No warming for over 15 years." - PStrandtard

Why do you feel a need to lie?
rubberman
4.4 / 5 (21) Jun 06, 2012
Of course you lied. You people are so brainwashed ....

http://www.woodfo...rom:1997


Yes but you see it wasn't deliberate and I admitted it when I realized my mistake....I could have gone a less respectable route and attempted to cover it by cherry picking some info. or simply not acknowledging that it was pointed out. What do you do?
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 06, 2012
Of course you lied. You people are so brainwashed ....

http://www.woodfo...rom:1997


Yes but you see it wasn't deliberate and I admitted it when I realized my mistake....I could have gone a less respectable route and attempted to cover it by cherry picking some info. or simply not acknowledging that it was pointed out. What do you do?


You do this all the time. Call me a liar. Or other people. And you never actually check.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 06, 2012
If there has been no warming then why is the trend line in global temperatures positive?



Which trend line? Why doesn't CO2 show itself?

Wood for tree is flat.

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

HADCRUT3 and RSS and HADSST2 are down.

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

etc

Why won't CO2 show itself everywhere?
GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2012
There is merrit to most of what the guy above is saying, but it's nothing new. The effects of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscilation, Arctic Oscilation, PDO, and ENSO have been discussed many times. There are still quite a few questions about how these systems interact to produce regional/seasonal patterns though. For example, nobody expected the mild Eastern US winter this year. On the other hand, the cold European winter and the continued drought in the South West US were both expected. The part above that is suspicious is where they claim to have found a pattern related to global warming. To the best of my knowledge, none of the major climate agencies have found any such pattern in observations. Another thing they don't mention is that a negative AO phase tends to promote ice regrowth in the Arctic, and the positve AO phase that just ended was the reason for much of the recent Arctic ice extent loss. He's right about it being complicated though. Almost chaotic perhaps.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2012
Nice try using weasel words to make cooling seem to be caused by warming.

I think you (and all the climate deniers) really need to head on over to a dictionary and look up the difference between the words "weather" and "climate".

Before you don't understand the difference between these very basic things there's just no use debating.
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2012
p.s.

Are you guys really have that argument about the past 15 years again?

15 years isn't a long enough time to have any meaning in regard to climate. You need more time than that to remove noise, so it doesn't matter if it's been positive or negative for the past 15 years.

Time will tell, and I suspect that most of the arguments over global warming will be over, one way or the other, before our lifetimes are over. Give it another 20 years of satellite observations, and there shouldn't be too much room to argue. The most extreme alarmist claims certainly seem to be proving themselves false already, though that could still change.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 06, 2012

15 years isn't a long enough time to have any meaning in regard to climate.


Yet all the AGW cult members screamed because of an 18 year period that ended long ago.

http://www.woodfo...77/trend

GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2012
One last comment about ice extent:

The best we have is still an estimate, and each agency has a slightly different method. You must understand that a large part of sea ice is actually pack ice, small pieces floating together. It is common for estimates to have a cut-off point at which they either do or don't count an area as being "ice covered". I don't feel like looking it up, but I think I remember that something like 70% ice sounds right? So, they look at images and try to figure out how much surface area is covered by about xx% ice or more, and that's what they count as the "ice extent". Most people don't understand that the exact same amount of actual ice can be either pushed together or stretched apart by the wind and currents to vastly change what we count as the "ice extent" for a given year. Further, an unfavorable wind pattern can carry large floats of ice out of the arctic in any given year too. It's highly variable and only a roughly representative estimate. Just sayin'
Lurker2358
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2012
This isn't near normal;

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png

This is not above normal;

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png

This is not normal;

http://arctic-roo...area.png

and

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

Meh...
kaasinees
3.3 / 5 (16) Jun 06, 2012
I tried to explain this mechanism in several articles, but i pictured it being the ocean currents not the air currents.
Did they see my comments?
Anyway why are we still debating on climate science this guy notparker is an idiot.
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2012
Yet all the AGW cult members screamed because of an 18 year period that ended long ago.


So? Do you let that bother you? I don't.
GSwift7
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2012
Kaasinees:

I tried to explain this mechanism in several articles, but i pictured it being the ocean currents not the air currents.


It's a combination of both ocean currents and air currents, but don't forget about air pressure either. Anyway, none of that is new. You can read about all that on the NSIDC web site. The only thing above that you won't find at NSIDC is the link between global warming and the prediction of extreme northern hemisphere winters as a result. Even for a person who is politically Green, does that sound like a very solid claim? I'm just asking your opinion, not trying to argue about it. The above article kinda goes against all the other big research agencies. That sounds suspicious to me. I don't trust outliers usually. That's like GISSTemp. it's the outlier among all the major temp records. Could be right, but what's the chance that all the rest are so wrong?
MandoZink
5 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2012
Time to re-post that perspective on cherry-picking your data.
http://www.skepti...ists.gif
GSwift7
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2012
Lurker

This isn't near normal


That depends what we choose to call normal. It's a bit arbitrary.
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2012
Time to re-post that perspective on cherry-picking your data.


funny.

Starting point of 1973 is hillarious. Those warmists are a hoot. lololol, in a joke about cherry picking. lmfao
rubberman
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2012
Time to re-post that perspective on cherry-picking your data.
http://www.skepti...ists.gif


I found it funny for different reasons I guess.....when should this start? If the final year is 2011 of course.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (16) Jun 06, 2012
This isn't near normal;

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png

Meh...


It was normal in the 20s/30s/40s.

http://www.nature...-1.10725

Yarking_Dawg
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2012
I love watching people who never actually put in the hard yards to become a scientist pretend like they know more than the people who have done the work.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2012
I love watching people who never actually put in the hard yards to become a scientist pretend like they know more than the people who have done the work.


Like cooling Arizona's temperature record by as much as 3.1F in the past for no good reason?

"The chart above shows how many degrees cooler each monthly average temperature for the entire state of Arizona for each month in 1934 was compared to the current NCDC database (i.e. versus what the actual monthly temperatures were in the original Climatological Data Summaries published in 1934 by the USWB (U.S. Weather Bureau). Note, for instance, how February is 3.1°F cooler in the current database compared to the historical record. Table created by Ken Towe."

http://wattsupwit...re-65130

SatanLover
3.1 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2012
Soon the earth will be in eternal flames, the perfect environment for my evil angel army.
Thank you oil and coal industry you will be the generals in my army as a gift.
These pity humans will burn alive.
Yarking_Dawg
4 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2012
I meant that comment sincerely (parker) and it applies to both sides of this debate. The denier crowd is particularly obvious in their ignorance and their abuse of the entire concept of science appears to be intentional, but by throwing data quotes around like this it is clear that neither side actually understands how science works, particularly in terms of strong inference and making scientific progress with imperfect data.

I use this in my research methods course:

Dinosaurs and the Democratic Peace: Paleontological Lessons for Avoiding the Extinction of Theory in Political Science 2006 DOUGLAS A. VAN BELLE

http://onlinelibr...2.x/full
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2012
I meant that comment sincerely (parker) and it applies to both sides of this debate. The denier crowd is particularly obvious in their ignorance


Actually, skeptics are much smarter and knowledgeable about science than the AGW cult who parrots their leaders without really understanding anything.

"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."

http://blogs.tele...-change/
MandoZink
5 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2012
Repeatedly posting anomalies to the trend only shows that there are anomalies to the trend!
The entire climate data set consists of a changing trend within natural cycles that are subject to random noise. It is quite natural and expected that the noise produces anomalies. The deniers need to understand a collection of anomalies is not picture of anything - except noise!

We need to discuss the trend instead of posting noise.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 07, 2012
Repeatedly posting anomalies to the trend only shows that there are anomalies to the trend!
The entire climate data set consists of a changing trend within natural cycles that are subject to random noise. It is quite natural and expected that the noise produces anomalies. The deniers need to understand a collection of anomalies is not picture of anything - except noise!

We need to discuss the trend instead of posting noise.


Sunshine Trend is up and matches up pretty good with maximum temperature in the UK.

http://sunshineho...us-tmax/

I wonder what other climate variables are up?
Parsec
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2012
Reality trumps opinion every single time. The climate is completely unaffected by anything people wish to happen, or anything people say. It just keeps on doing its thing.

So far, ideologues have prevented action that would reduce the cost of dealing with climate change. Each year they win the battle against dealing with it, is one more year that the overall costs of dealing with it increases dramatically. I suspect that by the time it is so blatantly obvious that the climate is changing and we must take action, the costs of doing so will be astronomical, along with the deaths of a lot of people and species.
rubberman
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2012
I meant that comment sincerely (parker) and it applies to both sides of this debate. The denier crowd is particularly obvious in their ignorance


Actually, skeptics are much smarter and knowledgeable about science than the AGW cult who parrots their leaders without really understanding anything.

Oh man...another gem.....
The scientist makes an observation, the donkey puts the exclamation point behind it.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2012
rubberman:

I found it funny for different reasons I guess.....when should this start? If the final year is 2011 of course.


Well, I WAS trying to be funny you know. I guess I fail, but I hope you see the irony that made me think it was funny. Land-only temps, starting in the 70's.

The answer to your question depends on the reason for making the graph. For a climate graph, it's generally agreed that 30 years is the minimum threshold for a single data point, if you want to average out noise. So, how many data points does it take to establish a trend? I'm not a statistician, but certainly more than two or three. If it takes 10 data points (for example), and it ends in 2011, then it would start in 1711 I guess. I, personally, would start the graph around 300k YA, so that it includes two glacials and two (including our present) interglacials.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2012
I take a lot of what I read with a grain of salt, but once in a while I run into something new that makes me think.

A guy was talking about paleo climate records, and casually mentioned that they are all naturally smoothed. Not that the scientists smooth them with math, but that the paleo evidence is itself smoothed by time and nature. In the case of tree rings, for example, an individual tree can give you a year by year account, though years with insect problems, extreme drought, or tree diseases may not show any growth at all, leaving a skips. So, you have to use multiple trees at various altitudes around a given region in order to get a complete record. It's impossible to match them all up exactly, so you end up with a record that is smoothed out a bit. So if you have an extremely warm, cold, dry or wet year it gets spread out across nearby years. If you smoothed out the past 150 years in the same way, well, you get the point.
rubberman
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2012
"I take a lot of what I read with a grain of salt, but once in a while I run into something new that makes me think."

I love it when that happens, I find an intelligent debate with an AGW skeptic who understands the science a pleasure, AGW is a weak argument from a causal standpoint because we all know the world was warming after the maunder. But attempting to dismiss our impact as non existent, or claiming that the world is cooling, basically says to me that person has no business commenting on science they don't understand. I found it funny because I recognized a few of the "joke" time intervals from other posts people have attempted to use as evidence.

That smoothing effect I have heard of as well. The timing of major changes becomes considerably less defined the further back you go because of it. Regional variability, the basis of this article, will be the wildcard of climate change, I'm glad I'll be here to witness it, I'm sad my kids will live their whole lives through it.
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2012
But attempting to dismiss our impact as non existent, or claiming that the world is cooling, basically says to me that person has no business commenting on science they don't understand


exactly. You can tell when all someone knows about it is what they get from Fox news or Rush Limbaugh. (or the same from the other side too)

That smoothing effect I have heard of as well. The timing of major changes becomes considerably less defined the further back you go because of it.


Yeah, exactly again. If there has ever been a rapid shift in the distant past, there wouldn't be much sign of it in the paleo records.

Regional variability, the basis of this article, will be the wildcard of climate change, I'm glad I'll be here to witness it, I'm sad my kids will live their whole lives through it


That's where we might differ a bit. There are numerous examples of natural changes on a regional even on short time scales. How do you seperate natural from anthropogenic?
GSwift7
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2012
continued:

That should have said "natural changes on a regional scale, even on short time scales"

I'm not saying that I disagree with that last part of your comment, rather that I am undecided in that regard. That's really the open question for me. Or rather questions. How much change are we causing? Is it mostly co2, or do other human factors actually add up to a larger impact (aerosols, land use, black soot, ect)? On a regional scale, where do human effects cancel out natural change, and where do they amplify each other? What effects are positive and what effects are negative, and how much? Even if some species will suffer, how many will benefit, and is the net result positive, negative or does it balance out?

Small differences in magnitude of change from one region to another can add up to a wide range of possible overall outcomes. Not all of them are bad. Any given region could also see both good and bad effects in different ways.
rubberman
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2012
"That's where we might differ a bit. There are numerous examples of natural changes on a regional even on short time scales. How do you seperate natural from anthropogenic?"

Yes, I got what you were going for and feel the same. There is a huge difference between a massive urban heat island like New york or LA altering precipitation patterns and a weakened AO diving into lower latitudes, one is an easy culprit, the other could go either way. When/if the frequency of this type of event increase I think the forcing will be easier for science to identify and of course hotly debated on this site regardless...I live in Canada, Climate change as a whole will likely benefit this country, others aren't as fortunate. Cheers til tomorrow.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 07, 2012
I live in Canada, Climate change as a whole will likely benefit this country, others aren't as fortunate.


Do you know what the temperature is in Canada?

May 2012 in BC it was -.71C below the long term May average.
May 2011 was .81C below.

May of 2012 was 3.2C colder than May of 1993.

http://sunshineho...ay-1993/

I haven't done the rest of the Provinces yet.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2012
The dramatic melt-off of Arctic sea ice due to climate change...

...does not exist. Didn't happen - neither the effect nor the cause.

@MandoZink said:
The entire climate data set...

...is not available for public peer scrutiny, although the subject of at least a few FOIA requests. It is quite natural and expected that the rest of your point can be safely disregarded.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
Do you know what the temperature is in Canada?

May 2012 in BC it was -.71C below the long term May average.
May 2011 was .81C below.

May of 2012 was 3.2C colder than May of 1993.

http://sunshineho...ay-1993/

I haven't done the rest of the Provinces yet.


For fu*&£$s sake NP. Why cant you get it that data like that is irrelevant.
For our "learning disability" contributor ( for the nth time ) .......... the Clue is in the word GLOBAL. And CLIMATE - NEITHER of which is represented above.

I have come to the conclusion that you are a TROLL and each climate related thread revolves around your repeated ignorance and misrepresentation of the science. This a science website after all and I contend that only so much should be tolerated by the informed and expert in the field of weather and climate. We have tried to inform you and it is quite evident that you cannnot or more likely don't want to be.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
Yes, but what is the temperature in Canada? You cherry picked only May and only BC and by implication dishonestly provided it as the temperature of the entire country.

"Do you know what the temperature is in Canada?
May 2012 in BC it was -.71C below the long term May average" - ParkerTard

You are mentally diseased, and your lies are as transparent as they are perpetual.
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2012
I take a lot of what I read with a grain of salt, but once in a while I run into something new that makes me think.


Yeah GWSFT,

And if you smooth peanut butter in your shorts, they'll stick to your ass.

But what, then, is exactly your point? Your smooth -not chunky!! peanut/buttery, patronizing tones seem to be urging us to some conclusion...

A guy was talking about paleo climate records, and casually mentioned that they are all naturally smoothed[...]extremely warm, cold, dry or wet year it gets spread out across nearby years. If you smoothed out the past 150 years in the same way, well, you get the point.


AHA -a plausibly, pseudoscientifically, ever-so-soothingly logically inferred conclusion that scientists just, naturally, smooth data, and that this makes any claim of evidence of AGW over less than a couple hundred years baseless. We'll just have to wait and see...like boiling a frog...

Earn a good living from the smooth peanut-butter-and-snake-oil trade?
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Do you know what the temperature is in Canada?

May 2012 in BC it was -.71C below the long term May average.
May 2011 was .81C below.

May of 2012 was 3.2C colder than May of 1993.

http://sunshineho...ay-1993/

I haven't done the rest of the Provinces yet.


For fu*&$s sake NP. Why cant you get it that data like that is irrelevant.


Not to the people who live in BC, Washington State, Oregon and Alaska.

And not to people interested in the PDO.

NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
Yes, but what is the temperature in Canada? You cherry picked only May and only BC and by implication dishonestly provided it as the temperature of the entire country.

"Do you know what the temperature is in Canada?
May 2012 in BC it was -.71C below the long term May average" - ParkerTard

You are mentally diseased, and your lies are as transparent as they are perpetual.


Your sig is boring.

For 2011 BC was .31C colder than the 1971-2000 average. That is 1.68C colder than the warmest year - 2004.

Washington State for 2011 was ranked 22 out of 118. 96 years were warmer. 3.8F colder than 1934.

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2012
the Clue is in the word GLOBAL


If the west coast is cooling, then the term "Global" is a misrepresentation of what is going on.

Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2012
Do you know what the temperature is in Canada?

May 2012 in BC it was -.71C below the long term May average.
May 2011 was .81C below.

May of 2012 was 3.2C colder than May of 1993.

http://sunshineho...ay-1993/

I haven't done the rest of the Provinces yet.


For fu*&$s sake NP. Why cant you get it that data like that is irrelevant.


Not to the people who live in BC, Washington State, Oregon and Alaska.

And not to people interested in the PDO.


You mean, NutPecker, "Not to the people who live in BC, Washington State, Oregon and Alaska.

And not to people interested in the PDO." --WHO ARE INERESTED IN CLIMATE, as opposed to local weather variations.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2012
WHO ARE INERESTED IN CLIMATE, as opposed to local weather variations.


The west coast climate has cooled. It may have to do with the PDO.

Name calling won't make the PDO go away or the west coast warm up.

Why do facts terrify you so much you must lash out?
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
WHO ARE INERESTED IN CLIMATE, as opposed to local weather variations.


The west coast climate has cooled. It may have to do with the PDO.

Name calling won't make the PDO go away or the west coast warm up.

Why do facts terrify you so much you must lash out?


Oh, pish, NutPecker--

Fear of "the facts", as you put it -is to say no fear at all

What you really mean to say is that you expect and intend that I will be devastated by your whole-cloth cocktail of lies, ommissions, conflations, discursions, and recursions topped with the most cherry-picked of cherrypickings, and that you are stunned and chagrined that I'm not overwhelmed by the sheer force of your sophistry.

How else do you expect me to respond to a mush-headed denialist that overestimates the power of his(?) argument, save through scorn and derision?

I held off for as long as I could, but you forced this reaction by placing the final strawman upon the camel's back, and now complain at the result.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

Annual Temperature - California
Annual 1895 - 2011 Trend = 0.07 degF / Decade

Annual Temperature - Oregon
Annual 1895 - 2011 Trend = 0.09 degF / Decade

Annual Temperature - Washington
Annual 1895 - 2011 Trend = 0.05 degF / Decade

"The west coast climate has cooled." - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
It isn't. You are lying.

"If the west coast is cooling" - Parkertard

You are mentally diseased ParkerTard. Get psychiatric help.
RazorsEdge
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2012
Excuse me while I exhale. {pause} Thanks to the butterfly effect I've change the Arctic weather - forever! The article is right about us changing the weather but by how much doesn't seem to matter to Greene and Monger. So the weather depends on a lot of factors. Is that a scientific prediction? No it's just the priests telling another tale to reinforce belief in the religion of AGW.
Caliban
4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
Excuse me while I exhale. {pause} Thanks to the butterfly effect I've change the Arctic weather - forever! The article is right about us changing the weather but by how much doesn't seem to matter to Greene and Monger. So the weather depends on a lot of factors. Is that a scientific prediction? No it's just the priests telling another tale to reinforce belief in the religion of AGW.


OK, well inhale again, because you are apparently not understanding the full import of their research.

What they are saying is that AGW is occuring.

Not only that, but that it --as predicted-- IS causing EXTREME VARIABILITY in local/regional weather.

Furthermore, the mechanisms by which these effects are produced are not always well understood and are sometimes a source of surprise, as they can be unforseen and unimagined until they are observed.

Fluid Thermodynamics can be quite tricky to model in detail, and difficult to visualize --especially on a planetary scale.

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2012
The west coast is cooling


Yes it is. Not from 1895.

I can just see VD being told to measure the height of a peaked roof drawing a line from the left side to the right and insisting the roof is flat.

Lots of interesting things happened between 1985 and now, and some of them are recent cooling.

Washington State

1934 = 50.9F
2011 = 47.1F

22nd coolest year in history. Only 96 years were warmer.
wealthychef
1 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2012
This isn't near normal;

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png

Meh...


Wow, interesting info. I'm one who is convinced climate change is real -- but your plots certainly seem to contradict the thesis of this physorg article.
Comments by the wise?
wealthychef
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2012

Actually, skeptics are much smarter and knowledgeable about science than the AGW cult who parrots their leaders without really understanding anything.

"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."

http://blogs.tele...-change/


That quote does not show skeptics are smarter than AGW proponents. It shows that smarter people are more skeptical and less likely to be AGW proponents. There is a different, and if you were one of the smart skeptics you'd know that. :-)
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2012
And Parkertard's quote misrepresents the actual study.

The study refers to increasing polarization of opinion and not the opinion itself. Differences are slightly greater with increasing competence, but acceptance is also much higher.

"That quote does not show skeptics are smarter than AGW proponents. It shows that smarter people are more skeptical and less likely to be AGW proponents" - Wealthchef

ParkerTard is a pathological liar.
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
This isn't near normal;

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png

Meh...


Wow, interesting info. I'm one who is convinced climate change is real -- but your plots certainly seem to contradict the thesis of this physorg article.
Comments by the wise?


Interesting indeed, WC-

Especially when someone takes the trouble to point out to you that Maximum Arctic ice extent is in March, and Minimum is in September.

Have another look at those graphs, bearing these two facts in mind.

Firstly, you will note that these data come from three different sources.
Secondly, you will note that the third and fourth are different representations of similar data, to highlight a certain aspect of the Max Sea Ice
Thirdly, you will note that the second graph is for ANTARCTIC ice(and hence MAX is seasonally reverse of Arctic) --not Arctic, so WTF is it doing with three other graphs all of which are for Max Arctic Ice.

CONTD
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
CONTD

Now, you can see that the first graph is indeed below AVERAGE.
("Normal" may or may not be represented by the shaded area within /- 2 standard deviations of the plotted average --and isn't even mentioned anywhere on the graph itself).

The second graph we shitcan for the above noted reason.

The third graph shows Max ice below AVERAGE, but is melting slowly, and has been of more or less average extent since late March/early April. Same caveat in regards to "normal"

Fourth graph shows that Max ice has been below AVERAGE(with only a few brief instances of reaching average extent) for the entirety of the 24 months prior to the date on which the graph was generated, which appears to have been early June of this year.

So, these graphs represent exactly what they claim to. In fact, all three agree that Maximun Arctic sea ice extent has been below AVERAGE for not only this past Winter, but for virtually the entirety of the past two years.

Was Lurker confused, or being bad?
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2012
And Parkertard's quote misrepresents the actual study.


You would think that. But you are too uninformed to understand the study.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2012
"Analysis of the images reveals that over the past decade, glacier retreat was as vigorous as in a similar period of warming in the 1930s."

And it all recovered. As will the Arctic. This year got off to a good start.

Antarctica is fine by the way.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png
SatanLover
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
I suggest we just all report notparkers posts and hope he one day gets banned.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
All of whom are experiencing warmer temperatures as global temperatures rise.

"Not to the people who live in BC, Washington State, Oregon and Alaska." - ParkerTard

Oregon Temperature trend 0.09F' per decade
Washington Temperature trend 0.01F' per decade
Alaska temperatures are 0.24F' per decade

Poor ParkerTard. He has nothing left but delusion and dishonesty.

Reality is relentless.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2012
ParkerTard's lie is easy to expose.

Ice cover is now down 1.06 million square kilometers over historical norms.

Here is a nice plot showing the deficit.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

"And it all recovered. As will the Arctic." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard is a congenital liar, and is mentally diseased.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2012
All of whom are experiencing warmer temperatures as global temperatures rise.

"Not to the people who live in BC, Washington State, Oregon and Alaska." - ParkerTard

Washington Temperature trend 0.01F' per decade


So much for CO2.

Especially the recent -1.66F / decade trend for the last 20 years.

Why doesn't CO2 have an effect on the west coast?
Skepticus
1 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2012
War is really good for my business! My pro-AGW franchises are selling tons and tons of expesive energy-efficient air conditioners, hybrid cars and solar power to pro-GWers. My pro-GW franchises are selling tons and tons of heaters, SUVs,incandescent light bulbs, luxury yachts, personal jets to pro-AGWers. My fast food franchises and my Pharmacom divisions who make drugs to keep the obese, diabetic fast-food-fed customers base alive and thus growing, are doing extremely well selling to both camps! Keep fighting folks! I am making a ton of money every second, splendidly for my and my folks' lifetimes. When the market/planet goes to hell and most of you die, the rest will be so poor, sick, powerless and disorganized to do anything but be owned as slaves in my global mega-corporation empire! Keep dividing yourselves!