Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay

Jul 30, 2014

In a paper published online today in the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature, Northeastern researchers Evan Kodra and Auroop Ganguly found that while global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variability in temperature extremes. For instance, while each year's average hottest and coldest temperatures will likely rise, those averages will also tend to fall within a wider range of potential high and low temperate extremes than are currently being observed. This means that even as overall temperatures rise, we may still continue to experience extreme cold snaps, said Kodra.

"Just because you have a year that's colder than the usual over the last decade isn't a rejection of the hypothesis," Kodra explained.

With funding from a $10-million multi-university Expeditions in Computing grant, the duo used computational tools from big data science for the first time in order to extract nuanced insights about climate extremes.

The research also opens new areas of interest for future work, both in climate and data science. It suggests that the natural processes that drive weather anomalies today could continue to do so in a warming future. For instance, the team speculates that ice melt in hotter years may cause colder subsequent winters, but these hypotheses can only be confirmed in physics-based studies.

The study used simulations from the most recent climate models developed by groups around the world for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and "reanalysis data sets," which are generated by blending the best available weather observations with numerical weather models. The team combined a suite of methods in a relatively new way to characterize extremes and explain how their variability is influenced by things like the seasons, geographical region, and the land-sea interface. The analysis of multiple climate model runs and reanalysis data sets was necessary to account for uncertainties in the physics and model imperfections.

The new results provide important scientific as well as societal implications, Ganguly noted. For one thing, knowing that models project a wider range of extreme temperature behavior will allow sectors like agriculture, public health, and insurance planning to better prepare for the future. For example, Kodra said, "an agriculture insurance company wants to know next year what is the coldest snap we could see and hedge against that. So, if the range gets wider they have a broader array of policies to consider."

Explore further: Arctic warming linked to fewer European and US cold weather extremes, study shows

More information: Scientific Reports 4, Article number: 5884 DOI: 10.1038/srep05884

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

No warming hiatus for extreme hot temperatures

Feb 26, 2014

Extremely hot temperatures over land have dramatically and unequivocally increased in number and area despite claims that the rise in global average temperatures has slowed over the past 10 to 20 years.

Recommended for you

Australia set to pay polluters to cut emissions

8 hours ago

Australia is set to approve measures giving polluters financial incentives to reduce emissions blamed for climate change, in a move critics described as ineffective environmental policy.

TransCanada seeks approvals for pipeline to Atlantic

18 hours ago

TransCanada on Thursday filed for regulatory approval of a proposed Can$12 billion (US$10.7 billion) pipeline to carry western Canadian oil to Atlantic coast refineries and terminals, for shipping overseas.

Does it help conservation to put a price on nature?

21 hours ago

Putting a price on the services which a particular ecosystem provides may encourage the adoption of greener policies, but it may come at the price of biodiversity conservation. Writing today in the journal ...

User comments : 56

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 30, 2014
"Just because you have a year that's colder than the usual over the last decade isn't a rejection of the global warming hypothesis,"

Well it surely isn't a conformation of it. All you AGWites, please notice the "hypothesis" at the end.

I had a prof who said climate extremes would become the norm years ago. Glad I listened as to not be blinded by the oversimplification of the CO2 excuse.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (23) Jul 30, 2014
With funding from a $10-million........The study used simulations from the most recent climate models

With 10s of millions in funding dependent on agreeing with the AGW Cult's dogma, their conclusion is such a surprise.
Meanwhile, the real world is cooling.
Dr_toad
Jul 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 30, 2014
Per the usual from toad. Way to add to the discussion.

And yes, give me $10 million to build a research team and we would solve the problem.
Dr_toad
Jul 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 30, 2014
Hey toadstool, if anything decades and hundreds of millions in climate models have proven, is that they are the furthest things from the truth. Yet, here we have another "study" based on climate models, that the author himself claims insurance would be based on. Do I need to spell out for you what these prophesies of doom and gloom will do for food prices. Moron.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (17) Jul 30, 2014
With funding from a $10-million........The study used simulations from the most recent climate models

With 10s of millions in funding dependent on agreeing with the AGW Cult's dogma, their conclusion is such a surprise.
Meanwhile, the real world is cooling.

With respect to the last Ice age - it is not.
mememine69
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 30, 2014
All you determined "believers" can tell our children is that science has been 95% certain for 32 years and YOU are 100% certain the kids are doomed to global climate crisis.
pandora4real
5 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2014
Adopt the forum rules on climate change. I'm not wasting time on comments where every brain dead troll has to repeat their idiotic comments. They're not debating; it's not a falsifiable (hence non-scientific) stance. It's based on faith and nothing anyone says will change their mind. They know the same is true of their comments. They don't want to change anyone, only inflict distress on those that are not as insentient as they are. That's the definition of trolling. Start deleting that crap or it's all you'll have. That's what they want. They want to come into reputable scientific circles and shout and disrupt the proceedings. Why do you indulge that???
supamark23
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2014
Per the usual from toad. Way to add to the discussion.

And yes, give me $10 million to build a research team and we would solve the problem.


Thing is, he's not wrong - you and antig are both complete fucking morons. Not partial morons, but complete.
Dr_toad
Jul 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 30, 2014
What's laughable toad is your inability to prove me wrong, so you resort to downvoting and name calling, on literally every post I write. Haha is what I say to you.

I wish I got paid for posting against mainstream robots, that would be sweet. If anyone is getting paid here it's probably a bunch of people in your crew that votes 1 on anything posted against the mainstream.

All you fools do is denigrate people who do science

Nope, find me a post where I denigrate the "science doers". Just because I think many are mislead, it doesn't mean I'm anti science. Damn, am I tired of having to type that...

I'm sure you're aware of my theory behind climate change (firmly rooted in science), so challenge me if you can. That's typically how a discussion works.

supamark23
Jul 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Jul 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2014
Well so far your "mountains of proof" have failed to disprove my posts on this article:
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Now toad resorts to childish nitpicking. I couldn't be more unsurprised
full_disclosure
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2014
With you two fucking morons on board, the problem will be solved in no time.


Your 'man-gina' must be killing you!!!!

Poster boy for typical Physorg pseudo science nit wits…you rock girl!!!!
runrig
5 / 5 (16) Jul 30, 2014
Hey toadstool, if anything decades and hundreds of millions in climate models have proven, is that they are the furthest things from the truth. Yet, here we have another "study" based on climate models, that the author himself claims insurance would be based on. Do I need to spell out for you what these prophesies of doom and gloom will do for food prices. Moron.

Mr Goracle.
I would be grateful for peer-reviewed observation on climate (not weather) that would support the above hand-waving.
Thanks in antic.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (18) Jul 30, 2014
Here you go runrig.
In one of the e-mails, East Anglia's Phil Jones, long a power player in the production of these reports, said this about some scientific articles he did not like: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

http://www.cato.o...r-review
runrig
5 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2014
Adopt the forum rules on climate change. I'm not wasting time on comments where every brain dead troll has to repeat their idiotic comments. They're not debating; it's not a falsifiable (hence non-scientific) stance. It's based on faith and nothing anyone says will change their mind. They know the same is true of their comments. They don't want to change anyone, only inflict distress on those that are not as insentient as they are. That's the definition of trolling. Start deleting that crap or it's all you'll have. That's what they want. They want to come into reputable scientific circles and shout and disrupt the proceedings. Why do you indulge that???

With respect - this is an essentially unmoderated Forum.
The Trolls have full/unmitigated access - with the exception of a few extra stupid ones who have been banned.
So the conundrum is - let em spam unhindered, or counter their bollocks ... time... after... time... after....
I choose the latter. Ignorance wont win.
runrig
5 / 5 (17) Jul 30, 2014
Here you go runrig.
In one of the e-mails, East Anglia's Phil Jones, long a power player in the production of these reports, said this about some scientific articles he did not like: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

http://www.cato.o...r-review

I said peer-reviewed observation of *cooling*.

"The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues."
No data and no unbiased view on ... whatever.
Those that choose to obtain their opinion from a biased source will never see the objective truth.
runrig
5 / 5 (16) Jul 30, 2014
Mr Goracle:
I'll repeat for the hard of hearing...
There is NO, repeat NO observation of cooling of the climate system of Earth.

To say that there is, is beyond stupid - it belong to the ranks of disinformation spreaders. Active Trolls who, though they may know better, have an agenda to spread lies.
You my desperately want the Earth to be cooling, but it is not, and will not while the CO2 we pollute the planet with continues to increase in order to provide big oil with continued profits and you with your kick-backs.
I say again, give me observation that over a ~30 year period the Earth has been cooling.
Not regionally but globally.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (20) Jul 30, 2014
Those that choose to obtain their opinion from a biased source will never see the objective truth.

So, your Lord Jones by his own admission reveals his intent to "redefine what the peer-review literature is", just to keep the heretics out, and yet you insist, that be the source of your truth.
I hope you got yourself a good guide dog.
TegiriNenashi
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 30, 2014
"...nuanced insights about climate..." -- I wonder how many people chuckle reading this. There is nothing subtle about climate change. The message is plain and simple: the temperatures are rising and humans are 97% responsible!
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (17) Jul 30, 2014
Speaking of subtle, when it becomes more and more obvious that dire predictions turn out to be wrong, changing message into "nuanced insights" is the way to save the face for climate research community. There is a downside, however. The useful idiots -- politicians -- who gave up to the pressure to spend trillions [on nonexistent problem] would not like that at all. Nobody likes to look like a fool in public, let alone jeopardizing their careers. I wonder why many scientists from other disciplines, who feel natural solidarity with their climate colleagues out of perceived "war on science" injustice, can't see the damage that collapse of climate science would do to reputation of science in general.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2014
antiG

The cooling argument isn't going to work, I suggest you quit trying. It won't work for the same reason the warming argument won't, because our small sample of observed measurements has no merit when considered against the history stored in the Vostok ice core samples.

History suggests that Earth's warming/cooling trend oscillates quite regularly.
http://www.longra...ures.htm
The graph at the bottom clearly shows a unique pattern has emerged since the industrial revolution. We can't, however, say for sure what effect CO2 really has. The Earth has warmed and cooled twice since then. We don't have a large enough sample size, and we don't fully understand Earth's complicated climate system yet.

That is a bad combo, which is why mainstream science blows MFM. How can 97% of scientists(or whatever the number of the day is) think they KNOW what's going on? It's beyond foolish, it's egotistical.

Science should be better than that
Dr_toad
Jul 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2014
toad, I don't even know what you just typed, and I refuse to google the term "mamser". You again show your lack of understanding with supamark23 type comments. Maybe you should retire those accounts, and throw in vietvet while your at it, your paycheck providers must realize they're not getting what they paid for.
Dr_toad
Jul 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 30, 2014
Hey toadstool I can understand your anger. You believe we get paid while stupid you get nothing for supporting your False Profit Al, who is enjoying his millions in his mansion while burning 24 times the electricity of the average household.
How does it feel to be so stupid toadstool?
howhot2
5 / 5 (13) Jul 31, 2014
The Trolls have full/unmitigated access - with the exception of a few extra stupid ones who have been banned.
So the conundrum is - let em spam unhindered, or counter their bollocks ... time... after... time... after....
I choose the latter. Ignorance wont win.

Very well put @runrig. Yeah and on an issue as stupidly obvious and fixable as global warming. Carl Sagan had an interesting episode in his TV series about mankind's future and how we would survive to be a space fairing people. Two man made events stood in our way; 1) Nuclear winter from a massive exchange and 2) was climate change.

Here is 1.5 min video from Carl Sagan on climate change from 1990

https://www.youtu...e0s#t=48

It's worth a view. He argues the case well.
Dr_toad
Jul 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2014
Climate extremes are here to stay...
They've ALWAYS been here to stay. It's the criteria we use to define an "extreme" that changes...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2014
antigoracle. Where are you? I'd really like to discuss this in person.

I'm a skinny old man, but still, I'd _really_ like to talk to you.

Cocksucker.

Dr. T.
Sounds like you've had some of that a"maize"ing bourbon...:-)
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 31, 2014
I'm sure you're aware of my theory behind climate change (firmly rooted in science), so challenge me if you can. That's typically how a discussion works.
@scroof
IF your "theory" were firmly rooted in science, you would have accepted the challenge and won
http://dialogueso...and.html
Well so far your "mountains of proof" have failed to disprove my posts on this article
this only proves you are scientifically illiterate, not that you have any proof

lastly, YOU made the claim that goes against THOUSANDS of published peer reviewed papers which are supported with empirical data. this means the burden of proof is upon YOU.

IOW - you are single-handed taking on the WORLD (not just local) scientists without a shred of evidence for support and you claim that because you can post to a public pop-sci site that your argument is every bit as valid?

This aint cheech and chong comedy hr., burnt-boy

ITS SCIENCE
runrig
5 / 5 (13) Jul 31, 2014
....when it becomes more and more obvious that dire predictions turn out to be wrong, changing message into "nuanced insights" is the way to save the face for climate research community.


tegiri:

Pray tell what these "dire predictions" that have TURNED OUT to be wrong, are - note the past tense.
All the "dire" bits are still in the future.
Unless you want to dig out some that were spun by your side from a single "scientist" mouthing off and who was wrong. It happenz. People are wrong sometimes. Look at your lot. It's the IPCC who are the collators of the science and (apart from the stupid Himalayan Glacier thing - still 20 years in the future).
runrig
5 / 5 (13) Jul 31, 2014
Climate extremes are here to stay...
They've ALWAYS been here to stay. It's the criteria we use to define an "extreme" that changes...

Point is the upcoming lot is our doing - we can mitigate some off the worst down the line. Hopefully. The CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere can be reduced. We just have to have the will to try (without economic meltdown).
It is the actions of the selfish who obstruct this... cue ryggy and another "socialist" rant.
Dr_toad
Jul 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 31, 2014
antigoracle. Where are you? I'd really like to discuss this in person.

I'm a skinny old man, but still, I'd _really_ like to talk to you.

Cocksucker.
--toadstool
I've noticed a typo - that should be STUPID not SKINNY
And sorry, I don't swing your way.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (14) Jul 31, 2014
Whoa doc, you need to lay off those self prescribed meds, they're making you crazy. Do you think throwing around Jewish insults make you sound enlightened?

Capn,
I don't have a "me vs the world" mentality, because I know it's not just me. The peer-reviewed sources I've submitted second that. There is no burden on me, I have my theories, I've stated what they are and how we can test them, so the burden is now on science. I don't have the resources to do it alone.

without a shred of evidence for support

Oh, I've provided plenty of evidence, you're just too dumb, old, and blind to see it. Keep thinking the world is flat, and the Earth is the center of the Universe...

As to your "challenge", I've posted my submission, now please STFU about it.

Until you can show, through peer-reviewed sources, that there's no magnetic influence on Earth's climate, then you're nothing more than a whine-ass mainstream troll.

That's my challenge to you

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2014
Scroofy said:
As to your "challenge", I've posted my submission, now please STFU about it.


My hat is off to you. As I have said many times, anyone who has the gonads to turn in a falsification (right or wrong) is worthy of accolades. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with you, but I have moved you out of the box I admit I have put some of the ranters into. I have read the posts and links you have provided and I do not agree that the link between the solar cycles and global warming is convincing. However, I am now, ready to see what others have to say.

I am serious when I suggest that you submit your approach to peer review. It can be done now in such a way that you don't need a doctorate or an institution behind you and it might be productive.

Again, I greatly appreciate your taking the step to try to falsify GW with your theory. That takes guts.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2014
Thermo,
Not sure if that was sarcasm...
I don't think he is trying to FALSIFY GW... Just think he is trying to add possible variables to the total equation...
Regardless, while not established or peer reviewed, Scroof does point out some interesting directions for consideration... I can envision some of his hypothesis as a potential addition/inclusion into the model you built a few weeks ago.
BTW, are magnetic properties of any GHG's available as published? Someone with way more patience than me might be able to put some sort of database together...
Just a thought...
Scroofinator
1.9 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2014
However, I am now, ready to see what others have to say

I'm glad to hear that, I wish more would be open to this idea. Thanks for having an open scientific mind.

It can be done now in such a way that you don't need a doctorate or an institution behind you and it might be productive.

I've considered it, but other than arXiv I have no idea where to begin.

WG is right on when he said
I don't think he is trying to FALSIFY GW... Just think he is trying to add possible variables to the total equation...

I think we get too caught up in thinking of global warming/cooling. I think we should just try to have a theory that's inclusive to anything and everything that could possibly have an effect on climate, regardless of the overall influence.

BTW, are magnetic properties of any GHG's available as published?

Very good question, one that I haven't been able to answer. I would suspect a few months with a cloud chamber would suffice, know where we can rent one? lol
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2014
Found one link...
http://scitation.....4858391
No idea as to the veracity of the site, tho...
also found
http://en.wikiped...ki/Ozone
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2014
Thermo,
Not sure if that was sarcasm...
I don't think he is trying to FALSIFY GW... Just think he is trying to add possible variables to the total equation...
Regardless, while not established or peer reviewed, Scroof does point out some interesting directions for consideration... I can envision some of his hypothesis as a potential addition/inclusion into the model you built a few weeks ago.
BTW, are magnetic properties of any GHG's available as published? Someone with way more patience than me might be able to put some sort of database together...
Just a thought...


Scroof and Whyd: You ask a question about the "magnetic properties" of GHGs. These would be magnetic moments of molecules and they are well known. That is not the real issue so I will expound for a bit and you can tell me if I have covered what you are asking and how we assess what might be important. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2014
Continued: As we get deeper into modeling we add more and more of the minor influences because they might interact and have results disproportionate to their apparent raw input. However, we also do sensitivity analysis to determine how important the interactions might be.

Let me address magnetic moments. One of the things you will see is that when looking at magnetic influences in gases we normally have to cool the gases down. The reason is that the kinetic energy of a gas results in velocities of molecules that are very high. For instance, the velocity of an oxygen molecule at room temperature is about 1000 m/s. That is about the speed of a high velocity bullet.

For the influence of a magnetic field to be important it must be as strong as the kinetic energy of the molecule or the first collision will affect it.

However, as the molecules get higher in the atmosphere they cool down and they have much longer paths between collisions. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2014
Continued: When you compare the kinetic energy with the magnetic force on the moment of the molecule and they are near each other in magnitude, they will be nearly equivalent in importance. If one is orders of magnitude less than the other it is an indication that it will probably be unimportant. Hence, after sensitivity analysis we have an order in which to add effects to a model.

There are some who use the "big bang" approach in which they try to add every possible parameter without sensitivity analysis and the result is usually a mess. It becomes difficult to deconvolute the results when there are too many parameters. Hence an incremental approach is favored.

Having said that, I don't know what the magnitude of the EM interactions are and to know that would be helpful.
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
thermo,
I'm all for an incremental approach, but science has to be open to actually add out of the box things.
Having said that, I don't know what the magnitude of the EM interactions are and to know that would be helpful.

Neither do we, which is why we are discussing it. WGs first link is interesting, as it states:
A composite material consisting of Co2C and Co3C nanoparticles has been found to exhibit unusually large coercivity and energy product.

and
Here, we demonstrate that the magnetic moments and the anisotropy can be further enhanced by using a combination of Co and other transition metals

So, at least at this level of study, CO2 is shown to have unique magnetic/energy properties. I realize they are combining them with transition metals, but CO2 is still the major player in these studies.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2014
As to your "challenge", I've posted my submission, now please STFU about it
@scroof
This actually took me by surprise. I can agree with Thermo's post here
I greatly appreciate your taking the step to try to falsify GW with your theory. That takes guts
I also think like Thermo about this
I am serious when I suggest that you submit your approach to peer review
I recommend that you talk to AAAS and try for a submission for peer review. If you are a member, they may allow it... if not, talk to them anyway.
http://www.sciencemag.org/

IF this is completely based upon the paper we have already discussed, then I suggest going back to that other thread and re-reading runrig's comments and adjusting your POV before submission to include the data.

I will refrain from commenting on the rest of your diatribe for obvious reasons.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2014
Neither do we, which is why we are discussing it. WGs first link is interesting, as it states:

A composite material consisting of Co2C and Co3C nanoparticles has been found to exhibit unusually large coercivity and energy product.


Here, we demonstrate that the magnetic moments and the anisotropy can be further enhanced by using a combination of Co and other transition metals


So, at least at this level of study, CO2 is shown to have unique magnetic/energy properties. I realize they are combining them with transition metals, but CO2 is still the major player in these studies.


Scroof: Are you reading Co2 as CO2? The Co2 they are referring to is Cobalt, not carbon dioxide. Likewise the Co3. Easy mistake to make. They are talking about cobalt carbides (which are solids).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2014
Scroof: Are you reading Co2 as CO2? The Co2 they are referring to is Cobalt, not carbon dioxide. Likewise the Co3. Easy mistake to make. They are talking about cobalt carbides (which are solids).

Doh! (as I smack my forehead)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
Just did a further check -
Carbon and diatomic oxygen both show strong paramagnetism (magnetic properties in the presence of outside applied magnetic forces) as separate elements...
And our atmosphere is kinda smack in the middle of two big magnetic force appliers - Sol and Earth...
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2014
Just did a further check -
Carbon and diatomic oxygen both show strong paramagnetism (magnetic properties in the presence of outside applied magnetic forces) as separate elements...
And our atmosphere is kinda smack in the middle of two big magnetic force appliers - Sol and Earth...


Whyd: molecular oxygen is paramagnetic due to quantum mechanics which has to do with the molecular orbitals. Carbon might be paramagnetic but carbon dioxide is not due to the molecular orbitals. Even oxygen has to be cooled to its liquid state to be strongly attracted to a magnet and heating it up adds too much kinetic energy for the magnet to affect it much. The bottom line is that any magnetic effects are going to be weak. I went out and refreshed my memory on the properties after you posted. Don't get me wrong, there are effects, but they will be weak.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
Thermo - thanks for the followup. This molecular orbital stuff is fascinating...
Whyd: molecular oxygen is paramagnetic due to quantum mechanics which has to do with the molecular orbitals. Carbon might be paramagnetic but carbon dioxide is not due to the molecular orbitals. Even oxygen has to be cooled ... to be strongly attracted to a magnet and heating it up adds too much kinetic energy... The bottom line is that any magnetic effects are going to be weak. Don't get me wrong, there are effects, but they will be weak.

I want read further on this and get back to you. Just seems to me that even a weak magnetic effect could result in molecular "clumping", perhaps meaning larger molecules which would then have a more pronounced effect(more heat retention, thus a larger radiative radius). And when considered on a planetary scale, might actually have a calculable effect...
or not....:-)
"from small things, Mama, big things one day come" (Dave Edmunds)
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2014
I think the western ice shelf, and the current cool of the Northern world (yes it is everywhere North), is a dramatic indicator.
I have two theories: 1. That the Arctic has become small enough that weather patterns can form a continuous cell around it, circling winds, that are efficiently transporting heat to/from the Northern Hemisphere.
The other is the increase in green energy and subsequent reduction in the use of gas and coal. Lights have been reduced in cities, and replaced with solar charged ones, ethanol is added to gas, solar cells, wind turbines; these all seem coincident with recent cooling trend.

I'm not putting my foot down and claiming these are scripture, but now you've heard it, and everyone should consider these causalities, maybe even develop your own ideas. We've got a new effect, and nobody seems to do anything but avoid the subject.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2014
I think the western ice shelf, and the current cool of the Northern world (yes it is everywhere North), is a dramatic indicator.
I have two theories: 1. That the Arctic has become small enough that weather patterns can form a continuous cell around it, circling winds, that are efficiently transporting heat to/from the Northern Hemisphere.
The other is the increase in green energy and subsequent reduction in the use of gas and coal. Lights have been reduced in cities, and replaced with solar charged ones, ethanol is added to gas, solar cells, wind turbines; these all seem coincident with recent cooling trend.

I'm not putting my foot down and claiming these are scripture, but now you've heard it, and everyone should consider these causalities, maybe even develop your own ideas. We've got a new effect, and nobody seems to do anything but avoid the subject.


Alche: There is no cooling trend. The oceans and change of state of ice all show heat content increasing.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2014
@thermostumped-
Perhaps your journals are telling you the N Hemisphere is warming or whatever. But I have looked at temperates all across the N Hemisphere and they are dramatically reduced. I have spoken with very many nationals from other countries and they say the same thing.
This year is cold.
I have tried to piecemeal Doppler radar data, and seen what looks like a continuous wind around the Arctic, but again it is piecemeal, so I have no solid information.

I am not confusing weather with climate, I am saying this years weather is atypically cold and would like to see if anyone else can come up with reasons why. I am for once talking about temperature, not ambient heat. Though now that you call attention to it, the two perspectives I propose are contradicting, despite similar effect.

Any help, suggestions or other observations?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
Alche said:
@thermostumped-
Perhaps your journals are telling you the N Hemisphere is warming or whatever. But I have looked at temperates all across the N Hemisphere and they are dramatically reduced. I have spoken with very many nationals from other countries and they say the same thing.
This year is cold.
I have tried to piecemeal Doppler radar data, and seen what looks like a continuous wind around the Arctic, but again it is piecemeal, so I have no solid information.

Any help, suggestions or other observations?


Are you saying that you have done a better job of figuring out the amount the globe is heating than all of the professionals that are working on the issue?

You might be able to get a better perspective if you include the oceans.

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
@thermostumpy
Right now you are using data I have always used or just plain knew without it being popular to confound a different observation. You're forgetting who you are talking to... you didn't buy the heat schtick until recently, it has been in my back pocket for 30 years. I've argued with your lapdogs about it, before they knew you would change your mind, so forgive them.

NO! I am referring to this year+ and why it has been uncanny-cold in the N. Hemisphere.
But by all means, be your cycber-bully obfuscater self and keep showing the yearly trends.

In the meantime, maybe someone with a couple of neurons can make some intelligent observations, rather than just vomit up someone else's work.
Scroofinator
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
Doh! (as I smack my forehead)

Ya, I did the same thing. Thanks for the catch thermo.
The bottom line is that any magnetic effects are going to be weak.

I agree that on the molecular level the effects are weak, but will it be weak over the system as a whole? Magnetism generally tends to have a cumulative effect when poles align. Like WG said, maybe there is localized "clumping" that occurs. We might be able to test irregularities in current weather patterns based on the system's overall molecular composition.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2014
I am saying this years weather is atypically cold and would like to see if anyone else can come up with reasons why.
@alche
1- I am going to give you a link that might help you understand how weather can be colder as well as more extreme with the global warming
2- I am NOT Thermo, ya moron! too bad I can prove it and you can't prove differently!
I am simply giving you a link that I think is relevant (even though I have given it to you before) MAKE SURE YOU WATCH THE VIDEO

http://qz.com/163...n-worse/

http://thinkprogr...95852994
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
Magnetism generally tends to have a cumulative effect ...

as Indicated by "field lines" ...
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2014
@thermostumpy
.....................NO! I am referring to this year+ and why it has been uncanny-cold in the N. Hemisphere.


Alchey:
I'm sorry my friend - but I do not know how it is possible to arrive at this conclusion.
Can you link to data that shows it?

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2014
@Captainthermo-
I wrote the book on how "GW" can induce cooling, you may recall me saying on this blog amillion times or so, this is how increase in heat can cool the planet. I was mocked for it for 25 years, and probably by you, yourself and you, until recently when username thermo seemed to acknowledge released heat was more important than temp..

Now, this year is weird, will all of you insecure proAGW-ers and deniers a-like take a look at what specifically is happening this year? Or are you all so parochial that you can't lift your heads out of your own opinions to look at significant current events, and say "this is an interesting new wrinkle... yes, I understand, this is happening because..."

The Alchemist
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
Well, I need to withdraw the statement, I google weather in the N. Hemisphere now, and it is all elevated. (?!)

However, travelers from England, Turkey, Poland, Germany and the US of course have told me different, and said it is true all over.

Exit, puzzled, tail between legs.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2014
Well, I need to withdraw the statement, I google weather in the N. Hemisphere now, and it is all elevated. (?!)

However, travelers from England, Turkey, Poland, Germany and the US of course have told me different, and said it is true all over.

Exit, puzzled, tail between legs.

Thank you for that honest admission.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.