Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming

Jan 06, 2010 By MALCOLM RITTER , AP Science Writer
Icicles cling to oranges Wednesday, Jan. 5, 2010, in Lakeland, Fla. Farmers spray their crops to help protect them against the cold temperatures. Temperatures in the area dipped into the mid-20's, and farmers are working to salvage millions of dollars' worth of strawberries and other crops. (AP Photo/Chris O'Meara)

(AP) -- Beijing had its coldest morning in almost 40 years and its biggest snowfall since 1951. Britain is suffering through its longest cold snap since 1981. And freezing weather is gripping the Deep South, including Florida's orange groves and beaches.

Whatever happened to global warming?

Such weather doesn't seem to fit with warnings from scientists that the Earth is warming because of greenhouse gases. But experts say the cold snap doesn't disprove global warming at all - it's just a blip in the long-term heating trend.

"It's part of natural variability," said Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. With , he said, "we'll still have record . We'll just have fewer of them."

Deke Arndt of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., noted that 2009 will rank among the 10 warmest years for Earth since 1880.

Scientists say man-made does have the potential to cause more frequent and more severe weather extremes, such as heat waves, storms, floods, droughts and even cold spells. But experts interviewed by The Associated Press did not connect the current frigid blast to climate change.

So what is going on?

"We basically have seen just a big outbreak of Arctic air" over populated areas of the , Arndt said. "The Arctic air has really turned itself loose on us."

In the atmosphere, large rivers of air travel roughly west to east around the globe between the Arctic and the tropics. This air flow acts like a fence to keep Arctic air confined.

But recently, this air flow has become bent into a pronounced zigzag pattern, meandering north and south. If you live in a place where it brings air up from the south, you get warm weather. In fact, record highs were reported this week in Washington state and Alaska.

But in the eastern United States, like some other unlucky parts of the globe, Arctic air is swooping down from the north. And that's how you get a temperature of 3 degrees in Beijing, a reading of minus-42 in mainland Norway, and 18 inches of snow in parts of Britain, where a member of Parliament who said the snow "clearly indicates a cooling trend" was jeered by colleagues.

The zigzag pattern arises naturally from time to time, but it is not clear why it's so strong right now, said Michelle L'Heureux, a meteorologist at the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The center says the pattern should begin to weaken in a week or two.

Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for Weather Underground, a forecasting service, said he expects more typical winter weather across North America early next week.

That will be welcome news in the South, where farmers have been trying to salvage millions of dollars' worth of strawberries and other crops.

On Miami Beach, tourists bundled up in woolen winter coats and hooded sweatshirts Wednesday beneath a clear blue sky. Some brazenly let the water wash over their feet and a few even lay out in bikinis and swimming trunks. A brisk wind blew and temperatures hovered in the 50s.

"Last year we were swimming every day," said Olivia Ruedinger of Hamburg, Germany. "I miss that."

Explore further: Bacteria ate some toxins, but worst remain, according to Gulf oil spill researcher

2.8 /5 (23 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

La Niña Anomaly Could Affect Winter Weather in Colorado

Nov 19, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- A strong La Niña that developed early last winter, only to disappear this summer, is showing signs of life again and could affect our winter weather, said University of Colorado at Boulder and NOAA atmospheric ...

Study Links 'Smog' to Arctic Warming

Mar 14, 2006

NASA scientists have found that a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime "smog" has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic.

Recommended for you

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 variab ...

Peru's carbon quantified: Economic and conservation boon

Jul 30, 2014

Today scientists unveiled the first high-resolution map of the carbon stocks stored on land throughout the entire country of Perú. The new and improved methodology used to make the map marks a sea change ...

User comments : 96

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
3.4 / 5 (25) Jan 06, 2010
"Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming"

Of course it doesn't.

But dairy farms in Greenland (1kya) and vineyards in Scotland (.85kya) do.
Simonsez
3.7 / 5 (18) Jan 06, 2010
Which experts are these, the ones responsible for Climategate?
NeilFarbstein
2.4 / 5 (20) Jan 06, 2010
Greenland's ice sheet and the arctic permafrost and the antarctic ice shelf are melting and they will raise the ocean level regardless of changes to colder climates in some localized regions. There might be a 9 meter rise in sea levels by the end of this century. It will destroy the habitats of 1/3 of the global population. There is a group to discuss that;

http://groups.goo...-warming
bbd
3.2 / 5 (18) Jan 06, 2010
"There might be a 9 meter rise in sea levels by the end of this century. It will destroy the habitats of 1/3 of the global population."

Oh, and yes the sky is falling too.
austux
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 06, 2010
Possibly the coldest northern winters for a long time may disprove global warming.

Little things like 33" of snow (in one storm) at Burlington, Vermont last Sunday probably don't count for much, nor do the amusing reports of the Copenhagen meeting being snowed under.
austux
3.7 / 5 (16) Jan 06, 2010
@NF: the Greenland ice sheet cannot collapse into the ocean, the structure is entirely wrong.

The Antarctic melt last year was the lowest ever recorded by satellite obs (a 30 year minimum).

The Arctic ice sheet grew by 30% in 2007/2008, possibly a partial reaction to the end of undersea vulcanism, & Antarctica grew 1,000,000km2.

Antarctica holds 90% of the world's ice. Eastern Antarctica, 4x larger than Western, is cooling, as is the entire Antarctic sea.

University of Illinois notes that Antarctic ice is 1,000,000km2 above average, as at May 2009.

In 2006, when Greenland was melting its fastest, the melt would raise the sea level by 1.2 inches per century. Time for panic stations?
austux
3.9 / 5 (13) Jan 06, 2010
As it turns out, the Pacific Basin is sinking, so those islands being drowned by "rising ocean water" are really being drowned by a lowered ocean floor.

Yesterday was the hottest summer day this season here in Albany, Western Australia (not NY or IL) at 37oC, one of very few days over 30oC, yet the January peaks here have routinely exceed 40oC (one almost 45oC) in past years.

As I type this, it is raining. We are not about to melt. (-:
NeilFarbstein
1.6 / 5 (16) Jan 06, 2010
@NF: the Greenland ice sheet cannot collapse into the ocean, the structure is entirely wrong.

The Antarctic melt last year was the lowest ever recorded by satellite obs (a 30 year minimum).

The Arctic ice sheet grew by 30% in 2007/2008, possibly a partial reaction to the end of undersea vulcanism, & Antarctica grew 1,000,000km2.

Antarctica holds 90% of the world's ice. Eastern Antarctica, 4x larger than Western, is cooling, as is the entire Antarctic sea.

University of Illinois notes that Antarctic ice is 1,000,000km2 above average, as at May 2009.

In 2006, when Greenland was melting its fastest, the melt would raise the sea level by 1.2 inches per century. Time for panic stations?


There's no ice in the summer at the north pole. Its unprecedented. maybe the ice sheets were recovering the ice they lost the past years. The overall trend is less ice and bigger rises in ocean levels. The melt rate is expected the heat up a lot from bioactivity of melting permafrost
NeilFarbstein
1.9 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2010
As it turns out, the Pacific Basin is sinking, so those islands being drowned by "rising ocean water" are really being drowned by a lowered ocean floor.

Yesterday was the hottest summer day this season here in Albany, Western Australia (not NY or IL) at 37oC, one of very few days over 30oC, yet the January peaks here have routinely exceed 40oC (one almost 45oC) in past years.

As I type this, it is raining. We are not about to melt. (-:

whatever the cause they will be in over their heads!
GrayMouser
3.4 / 5 (20) Jan 06, 2010
There's no ice in the summer at the north pole. Its unprecedented. maybe the ice sheets were recovering the ice they lost the past years. The overall trend is less ice and bigger rises in ocean levels. The melt rate is expected the heat up a lot from bioactivity of melting permafrost

No ice at the North Pole in the summer? What do you think this is? The 1930s? The North Pole has been recovering quite well from the temporary change in the Gulf Stream and is within normal variation observed since the 1935 to 1945 warm period.
As far as warm periods go, we've seen at least two periods warmer that the present: the 1935-1945warming and the Medieval Warm Period. Given that we're not yet to the average midpoint between ice ages it would be sane to expect further warming for next few thousand years.
GrayMouser
3.2 / 5 (18) Jan 06, 2010
Deke Arndt of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., noted that 2009 will rank among the 10 warmest years for Earth since 1880.

Funny how it also ranks in the ten coldest years since the 1880s.

I guess it's just how you cut the numbers...
NeilFarbstein
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 06, 2010
where i live its getting much warmer at the end of summer. we get a month and half extra summer weather, consistently, but the earlier half of summer has become cooler and rainier. It works out to about two extra weeks of hot weather. And the winters are much less bitter. There is definitely a warming trend where I live. They call two feet of snow a lot but there were 13 foot drifts once in 1971, and we used to regularly get drifts of snow about six feet high. Now it all melts after a day.
CarolinaScotsman
3.7 / 5 (14) Jan 06, 2010
If you're worried about rising sea levels inundating coastal cities, go study what the Dutch have been doing for 150 years now. A third of their country is below sea level, but they're not worried. Amazing how planning can overcome problems. In the meantime, we'll find out what the future is like when we get there.
omatumr
3.2 / 5 (20) Jan 06, 2010
Al Gore and the IPCC predicted global warming and assured us that Earth's climate is immune to cyclic changes in the Sun.

But sunspots disappeared and the Earth cooled.

Now the same experts try to explain low temperatures with hand-waving!

What a sad state of affairs for science.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Caliban
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2010
You can expect summers to be hotter and winters to be colder as a result of rising average temperatures. You can expect both extremes to spike even further. The density of air masses at various temperatures explains these "anomalies", as well as their persistence, along with the more chaotic/unseasonal/violent weather we observe with ever greater frequency.
Nartoon
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2010
"Given that we're not yet to the average midpoint between ice ages it would be sane to expect further warming for next few thousand years."

I'm not sure that's right, the recreations I've seen show that we're close to the start of another ice age, if not past normal time. Our current interglacial period has had a much longer flat top of temperature compared to most interglacials that just seem to rise in temperature for thousands of years, hit a peak of very short duration and then start to cool for a few thousand years, with only a thousand year plateau much shorter than our current plateau.
NeilFarbstein
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2010
If you're worried about rising sea levels inundating coastal cities, go study what the Dutch have been doing for 150 years now. A third of their country is below sea level, but they're not worried. Amazing how planning can overcome problems. In the meantime, we'll find out what the future is like when we get there.


The cost of constructing dikes has taken its toll on their economy. If we have to do the same it will bankrupt the treasury and they might have to triple tax rates to pay for it.
thematrix606
3 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2010
If you're worried about rising sea levels inundating coastal cities, go study what the Dutch have been doing for 150 years now. A third of their country is below sea level, but they're not worried. Amazing how planning can overcome problems. In the meantime, we'll find out what the future is like when we get there.


The cost of constructing dikes has taken its toll on their economy. If we have to do the same it will bankrupt the treasury and they might have to triple tax rates to pay for it.


Yes, and the destruction of the entire country is no problem, right? Money is more important to you.
dachpyarvile
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2010
Neil,

No ice at the North Pole? What have you been smoking? Here is the Minimum Arctic Sea Ice Extent for September 12, 2009:

http://nsidc.org/...ure1.png

And, here is the Sea Ice Extent for the middle of Summer:

http://nsidc.org/...ure1.png

Please, get a grip on yourself and stop believing the alarmist hype. :)
Photic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2010
We're in a panic over warmer temperatures. Yet we've only been recording it for approximately 300 years (Oldest I could find was 288 years). We're panicked about GLOBAL WARMING. Don't get me wrong, I agree we need to get a handle on our waste and use cleaner sources of energy. Although it seems to me that we don't consider other variables, such as the natural wobble of the earths axis, or that magnetic north is continually moving (http://news.natio...e.html), or how another user mentioned that the sun spots have calmed for a long stretch. I think there are too many variables that are unaccounted for. I don't know how anyone can say for certain that we're in grave danger given the sample size of our data. A conspiracy theorist would probably even speculate that the leading experts on the matter make it sound worse than it is to stay employed. Oh! Wait-a-minute, isn't that what happened?
jimmy18
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2010
A few things i have noticed first hand.
The summer temparatures have been cooling since 2004, the best summer i can remember,
The winter temparatures have been getting colder since 2004, Yes Al Gore is now a very rich man from creating panic.
I was born in 1977, we had snow every year up till 1986-87, we then had no snow up until 2005 where it started again, every year its been getting colder and worse.
This is not a scientific study its true weather as i have witnessed it.
Global warming is now a key industry for the UK and germany, you have to remember in goverment they will only listen to scientists that push there ideas forward, and its normally for economical reasons. Dont believe everything were told, the Artic has been dramatically growing and shrinking for millions of years and is not a new thing as were being warned.
freethinking
3 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2010
Where I've lived the temps have been going down for the last 5 years. Each year colder than the last. I dont think its possible to have a discussion with those who are in the cult of global warming, they have drank the coolaid of global warming and cant get up anymore.
NeilFarbstein
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2010
Even if the temperatures are going down where you are, there's still the problem of shrinking ice cover in the arctic. There is a genral trend of polar ice melting where each oscillation get warmer than the last one when the temperature goes
up and openings of a northwest passage have occurred for the first time in history.
dachpyarvile
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2010
Wrong. The Northwest passage was first traversed in 1906 by ship. The name of the person who did it was Roald Amundsen. This was followed by another ocean crossing through the passage in 1944 by Henry Larsen and his crew.

In addition, look at this again:
http://nsidc.org/...ure1.png

This was the Minimum Sea Ice Extent for this year. I do not see the Northwest Passage open here. Here is 2008's Sea Ice minimum:
http://nsidc.org/...ure1.png

Nope. No opening of the Northwest Passage here, either. Here is 2007's Sea Ice Minimum:
http://nsidc.org/...tent.png

Nope! No open Northwest Passage here either! 2006?

http://nsidc.org/...tent.png

Nope! No opening there, either. When did this non-existent opening occur again, Neil?
Helio
1 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2010
Neil,

No ice at the North Pole? What have you been smoking? Here is the Minimum Arctic Sea Ice Extent for September 12, 2009:

http://nsidc.org/...ure1.png

Please, get a grip on yourself and stop believing the alarmist hype. :)


"Arctic sea ice extent at end of December 2009 remained below normal, primarily in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic. Average air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean were much higher than normal for the month, reflecting unusual atmospheric conditions."

Read more at the NSIDC site.
dachpyarvile
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2010
Helio,

I have been posting links to images from NSIDC. Have you not looked at those? In no case is there any data from NSIDC to show that there was no ice at the North Pole. Look over the site yourself and try to understand what you read, please. There has been ice at the North Pole.
Helio
2 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2010
Helio,

I have been posting links to images from NSIDC. Have you not looked at those? In no case is there any data from NSIDC to show that there was no ice at the North Pole. Look over the site yourself and try to understand what you read, please. There has been ice at the North Pole.

Yes that is where the quote is from. I always check out references given in this forum to make sure they are not from the sceptic merry-go-round.

I am not seeking to defend someone else's conjecture that there is no ice at the north pole. I am simply referring you to recent information from the site you used.
GrayMouser
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2010
But experts interviewed by The Associated Press did not connect the current frigid blast to climate change.

AP? They just got raked over the coals by the Washington Post for their distorted reporting on Climategate. Seth Borenstein is a ardent AGW advocate and has had a high profile in the Climategate emails as well as, according to the Post, misquoting the experts when they didn't give the correct replies.
http://www.washin...p10_read

Just so nobody thinks that the US press is the only ones doing this, The Times has had to pull advertisements about global warming after they were the Advertising Standards Authority twigged to the fact that they were lying.
http://www.thereg...a_wrong/
dachpyarvile
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 08, 2010
Helio,

Take a look at this:
http://nsidc.org/...ure6.png

There was more ice in 2009 than in 2007. Notice also that the result of this year's weather also moved the 1979-2009 average to a closer profile to the 1979-2000 average.

Not quite where it was but still an overall improvement over 2007s prediction of an ice-free Arctic for 2008. :)
freethinking
2.1 / 5 (17) Jan 08, 2010
All you AGW deniers quit presenting facts that destroy my religion of Global Warming.... fact are irrelevant. The truth as told by Al Gore and his apostles we will all die by flooding and heatwaves and it is all caused by global warmer deniers.

Hey Al... can I have more cool-aid????
jgfox
2.8 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2010
If you go to the NOAA US Historical Temperature website and have it automatically draw the temperatures of 2000 to 2009 you will get the following:

Climate At A Glance
Most Recent 12-Month Period (Dec - Nov) Temperature
Contiguous United States

Most Recent 12-Month Period (Dec - Nov) 2000 - 2009 Trend = -0.62 degF / Decade
http://www.ncdc.n.../na.html

That's a cooling trend -.62 F/decade in the last 10 years consistent with data from other sources.

Effect of Sun

There is a new peer reviewed article that is finding a coorelation of Ozone loss over the poles to increased cosmic rays due to the very inactive sun.

Dr. Lu's finding show that the cause of Ozone loss is related to a newly elucidated mechanism involving CFCs, ice particles, and Cosmic Rays.
http://newsreleas...?id=5152
freethinking
Jan 08, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dachpyarvile
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2010
Of course, it all depends upon where the line is drawn where the NCDC/NOAA website is concerned. One, however, can see the actual, current cooling trend for the last decade by limiting the data from 1999 to 2009. Annual 1999-2009 Trend = -0.83 degF / Decade.

One also gets an overall cooling trend by limiting the Base Period start date to 1930 and the first year to display at 1999.

As to Dr. Lu's claims I find them interesting and intriguing. I'd surely like to have a look-see at his raw data.
GrayMouser
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 08, 2010
Of course, it all depends upon where the line is drawn where the NCDC/NOAA website is concerned. One, however, can see the actual, current cooling trend for the last decade by limiting the data from 1999 to 2009. Annual 1999-2009 Trend = -0.83 degF / Decade.

It seems that, with fewer and fewer monitoring stations, temperatures in one area have been used to replace stations that have gone out of service. However, replacing the temperatures with values from entirely different, and much warmer, regions (now known as "The Bolivia Effect") gives false warming trends much like the CRU's 'value added' data.
http://chiefio.wo...-effect/
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2010
They did something similar in Australia. Where one temperature station went defunct they began inserting data from another station some miles away in a region known to be several degrees hotter than the original location.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 09, 2010
Before the AGW religion began, climate scientist had figured out that the sun drives the climate and that carbon dioxide has a negligible effect. Politicians inserted the notion that mankind is warming the planet with CO2. They greatly increased grants for scientists who tried to link CO2 to warming, thus creating a global warming industry and greatly distorting climate science.

There is no real science behind AGW, it is a political/financial movement and nothing more.

What is shocking is that those who try to re-assert actual climate science are called unscientific climate deniers. It is to laugh.
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2010
In the lab CO2 can significantly increase the ambient heat in a closed system like a bottle.

But, what the public does not keep in mind is that the earth is not a closed system in a laboratory and that the amounts of CO2 in the experiments amount to levels very much higher than ever have existed in the atmosphere of earth.
peteone1
3.1 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2010
This Winter Could Become the Worst in 25 Years
Nearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing levels overnight recently, is also feeling the almost-nationwide chill.

http://www.accuwe...ear=2010

Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict

Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned

http://www.telegr...ict.html

Mother Nature Exacts Her Revenge...http://newsmax.co...d/344897

Millions across US endure record-setting cold...http://iceagenow....cold.htm
peteone1
3 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2010
The empirical evidence speaks for itself. Observations and even climatic analysis over time reveals cyclic patterns of warm and cold, some that not only predate human industrial (capitalistic) activity, that the Greenie wing of the secularist Left hates so much, but also in some cases, predate humanity on the earth millions of years ago.

The truth is that science not only doesn't support the idea of AGW, it supports the idea of increased CO2 levels actually being beneficial for the planet...
http://thenationa...ous-gas/
peteone1
3 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2010
Benefits to Humans of increased CO2...Far from being a pollutant, rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will never directly harm human health, but will indirectly benefit humans in a number of ways. Chief among these benefits is global food security. People must have sufficient food, simply to sustain themselves; and the rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that has occurred since the inception of the Industrial Revolution (an increase of approximately 100 ppm) has done wonders for humanity in this regard. And, it will continue to work wonders in helping us meet the rising food consumption needs of a larger, future population.

http://www.plants...upport=1
toyo
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2010
I does my ailing heart good to hear the level of skepticism in these comments.
True science is only advanced when current theories and beliefs are challenged.
Skepticism is an integral part of the methodology used to advance science.
True scientists welcome a challenge, welcome skepticism, because it is this challenge that gives rise to new research, new data, new theories and ultimately new knowledge, which is what REAL SCIENCE is all about.
Beware of anyone who derides or belittles skepticism - that person is not acting in the best interest of new knowledge or of science itself.
That person has fossilized thinking, or an agenda!
Certainly such a person DOES NOT have the best interest of science, or humanity, at heart.

AMEN, AGW acolytes!
NeilFarbstein
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2010
Benefits to Humans of increased CO2...Far from being a pollutant, rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will never directly harm human health, but will indirectly benefit humans in a number of ways. Chief among these benefits is global food security. People must have sufficient food, simply to sustain themselves; and the rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that has occurred since the inception of the Industrial Revolution (an increase of approximately 100 ppm) has done wonders for humanity in this regard. And, it will continue to work wonders in helping us meet the rising food consumption needs of a larger, future population.

http://www.plants...upport=1

increasing CO2 concentrations have not done "wonders" for humanity. It has caused a lot of desertification and famine everywhere. Extra co2 causes crops to be starchier but they don't add protein or lipids to their weight.
mertzj
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2010
Benefits to Humans of increased CO2...Far from being a pollutant, rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will never directly harm human health, but will indirectly benefit humans in a number of ways. Chief among these benefits is global food security. People must have sufficient food, simply to sustain themselves; and the rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that has occurred since the inception of the Industrial Revolution (an increase of approximately 100 ppm) has done wonders for humanity in this regard. And, it will continue to work wonders in helping us meet the rising food consumption needs of a larger, future population.

http://www.plants...upport=1


Great news!!!!! Im going to leave the car running in the garage with my door open from now on!!! Might see if I can get my lawnmower into the bedroom and leave it running while we sleep as a little health bonus!!!
Claudius
2 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2010
increasing CO2 concentrations have not done "wonders" for humanity. It has caused a lot of desertification and famine everywhere. Extra co2 causes crops to be starchier but they don't add protein or lipids to their weight.


Interestingly, the Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusual prosperity. Rising CO2 levels did not negatively impact them at all.
mertzj
2 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2010
Heck don't tell anyone they will make us start paying a premium for electricity for all the wonderful CO2 that power plants are pumping in the atmosphere for us!
mertzj
2.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2010
increasing CO2 concentrations have not done "wonders" for humanity. It has caused a lot of desertification and famine everywhere. Extra co2 causes crops to be starchier but they don't add protein or lipids to their weight.


Interestingly, the Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusual prosperity. Rising CO2 levels did not negatively impact them at all.


Seriously??? All the power plants and cars during the medieval warm period had no effect? Geez why haven't scientists just studied history?
GrayMouser
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2010
FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS by GERLICH & TSCHEUSCHNER in International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB)
http://ejournals....84X.html

A paper NOT covered in PHYSORG... Interestingly it describes a simple experiment (done 100 years ago) that any child could do that proves the Green House Effect proposed by Arrhenius to be wrong. It also argues, like several in this thread, that the Earth is not a closed system and isn't amenable to analysis through simple models.
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2010
Seriously??? All the power plants and cars during the medieval warm period had no effect? Geez why haven't scientists just studied history?


If you knew anything at all about climate science, you would know that CO2 levels increase after increases in temperature, not before. CO2 levels did rise during the Medieval Warm Period, following an increase in temperature caused by the sun.
dachpyarvile
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2010
increasing CO2 concentrations have not done "wonders" for humanity. It has caused a lot of desertification and famine everywhere....


Famine everywhere? Really? Where are you getting your facts, Neil? The same place you got your ice-free North Pole in 2008 that never happened in history garbage?

And, desertification has been occurring for many thousands of years. It is a condition caused in part by changing wind and precipitation patterns. Thousands of years ago there was once a river that flowed from Western Arabia to the Persian Gulf. Its remains have been observed via satellite. CO2 didn't make it go away.

Consider also the following:
Global warming could end Sahara droughts, says study... Satellite images suggest vegetation in the region has recovered significantly over the last 15 years, pushing the southern Sahara into retreat.

http://www.guardi...techange
dachpyarvile
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2010
Neil,

From an article dated July 2009:

In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne's Africa Research Unit in Germany.

***

In 2008 Kröpelin—not involved in the new satellite research—visited Western Sahara, a disputed territory controlled by Morocco.

"The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years," Kröpelin said. "They have never seen so much grazing land."

"Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass," he said.

"Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back," he said.

http://news.natio...ara.html
Parsec
4.5 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2010
If you knew anything at all about climate science, you would know that CO2 levels increase after increases in temperature, not before. CO2 levels did rise during the Medieval Warm Period, following an increase in temperature caused by the sun.


Simply repeating this claim that temperature rise causes CO2 rises over and over doesn't make it true. Scientists have identified 2 main sources of climate forcing. Orbital changes causing more solar radiation, and atmospheric greenhouse gas changes. In the first case, CO2 concentrations that follow the temperature increases (the basis of your claim I believe), tends to magnify the changes caused by solar radiant increase. However, temperature increases FOLLOW CO2 concentration increases in those cases not driven by orbital changes.

I know that its hard to understand that each can cause the other, but thats what the data shows.

In other words,
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2010
Simply repeating this claim that temperature rise causes CO2 rises over and over doesn't make it true.


But, it is true. That is what is of interest. we see in the proxy data that temperatures rise and CO2 goes up. One does affect the other in both directions but CO2 does not affect things as expected. CO2 has been rising steadily but temperatures have declined this decade in spite of the increases in CO2.

Then there are the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period to account for in spite of the fact that CO2 levels ppm were lower then than now. What orbital changes were responsible? It cannot be the null hypothesis Milankovic cycles.

That there is a cycle seems to be apparent, one of roughly a thousand years length. The Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period and the current period are all approximately 1,000 years apart. Prior to that climate was warmer than ever reached today. That is what the unmessaged proxy data shows.
NeilFarbstein
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2010
who cares if morocco and parts of the northern sahara are developing into grassland? The dust bowls of the thrities might return to the american southwest permenantly. And the land around Peking is becoming desertified.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2010
Before putting pressure on the White House to act ("A Global Warning to Mr. Bush," Feb 26 editorial), shouldn't we be asking whether global warming is really happening? The Kilimanjaro ice cap is not a thermometer. It may well be melting, but this is simply a delayed consequence of a natural climate warming during the early part of the 20th century. Moreover, it will continue to melt as long as the climate doesn't return to the temperatures of the Little Ice Age of past centuries.

The National Academy of Sciences published a report* last year that defines the geographic regions of warming and cooling during the last 20 years. Surface measurements of East Africa show no warming trend (Fig. 6.2, p. 34). Weather satellites show a pronounced cooling trend of the atmosphere there (Fig. 7.1, p.43). No one has questioned these data.

S.Fred Singer
Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia, USA

From: Letter to NY Times (published March 1, 2001)
Claudius
1 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2010
Scientists have identified 2 main sources of climate forcing. Orbital changes causing more solar radiation, and atmospheric greenhouse gas changes.


Orbital changes? No, it is solar flux, which is not dependent on orbital changes. Then, CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas. Water vapor is responsible for 95%of the greenhouse effect.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2010
Finally, take a look at this presentation by the same environmental scientist:

http://www.sepp.o...nger.htm

Take an especially good look at sections B-D of the outline on surface temperature stations and on proxies and the declines that they have shown (which is why CRU and others found it necessary to "hide the decline").
dachpyarvile
1.7 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2010
who cares if morocco and parts of the northern sahara are developing into grassland? The dust bowls of the thrities might return to the american southwest permenantly. And the land around Peking is becoming desertified.


How soon we forget... The Dust Bowl effect was also largely caused by poor agricultural practices. CO2, which was lower then than now, was NOT responsible.

Peking desertification under way? I suggest taking a closer look at land use problems than at CO2. I also suggest a quick read of this:

"NDVI-indicated decline in desertification in China in the past two decades", in "Geophysical Research Letters" at the following URL:

http://www.agu.or...64.shtml

Neil, where are you getting your stuff from? Climate Science blogs? :)
jonnyboy
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2010
I tend to believe that Neil is one of those many "scientists" making their living off of AGW
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2010
It's funny how people don't read the article before posting. How did this go unnoticed:

"2009 will rank among the 10 warmest years for Earth since 1880"

How do a few cold days compare to that? People have to understand the difference between long term trends and short term variability (and obviously all the people saying that climate change is a hoax don't).
jonnyboy
1 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2010
Finally, take a look at this presentation by the same environmental scientist:

http://www.sepp.o...nger.htm

Take an especially good look at sections B-D of the outline on surface temperature stations and on proxies and the declines that they have shown (which is why CRU and others found it necessary to "hide the decline").


Thank you for posting this link.
Parsec
4.8 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2010
Lets be clear please. No one has ever claimed that global warming causes each year to be warmer than the last. No one. No one has ever claimed that it is even impossible that each decade has to be warmer than the last. Latest calculations predict record cold days even in 2050 with much higher temperatures.

The measurements show that the warming detected is a lot smaller than the year to year variability. The global energy balance from La Nina and El Nino for example are considerably larger than the energy balance changes from greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, one of things emerging from the climate models is the possibility that global warming could cause a mini-ice age in Europe, where local temps drop as much as 10 or more degrees F. This could happen if a large influx of fresh water shuts off the gulf stream. Obviously the heat would go elsewhere.

The insidious point is that short term variability washes out in the long term. Longer term warming trends accumulate.
Parsec
5 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2010
Claudis -> solar flux isn't dependent on orbital changes? I suggest laying off the pipe a few hours before posting.

The primary effect of the Milankovic cycles is that solar flux distribution during the year changes. This has been a primary driver of many past ice ages. Or do you disagree with that as well?
thermodynamics
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2010
GrayMouser said:
FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS by GERLICH & TSCHEUSCHNER in International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB)
http://ejournals....84X.html

A paper NOT covered in PHYSORG... Interestingly it describes a simple experiment (done 100 years ago) that any child could do that proves the Green House Effect proposed by Arrhenius to be wrong. It also argues, like several in this thread, that the Earth is not a closed system and isn't amenable to analysis through simple models.


Unfortunately, that analysis has been shown to be without merit. The problem is that the paper steps on the laws of thermodynamics and doesn't even know it. A first year Physics major could do a good job of dismantling the paper. Use google and take a look at the refutation papers. Be perpared to recall some of your calculus if you are going to understand the holes in the paper.
thermodynamics
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2010
Let me just add a little bit of thermodynamics and heat and mass transfer to the mix. First, where is the cold air coming down to the nothern continents to cool them coming coming from? Since they are generally called "arctic blasts" I would bet you are guessing arctic and you would be right. Now, lets consider mass balances. If you have cold air pouring out of the north because it is more dense, does the arctic pull a vacuum? No, it pulls warm air from the temperate zones up to the artic to balance mass. So you have rivers of cold air flooding down from the north and concurrent rivers of warm air flowing upward to make up for the mass movement. That is warming the arctic. Second, understand that temperature is much less important than enthalpy. Heating water takes much more enthalpy than heating the same mass of air (or even rock).Look at enthalpy change to balance energy. The bottom line, balance enthalpy and mass flow. Then draw conclusions.
Claudius
1 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2010
Claudis -> solar flux isn't dependent on orbital changes? I suggest laying off the pipe a few hours before posting.

The primary effect of the Milankovic cycles is that solar flux distribution during the year changes. This has been a primary driver of many past ice ages. Or do you disagree with that as well?


Solar flux is primarily dependent on solar activity, seen as changes in the number of solar flares, sunspots, etc. It is difficult to imagine a mechanism by which the Earth's position in orbit around the Sun influences solar activity. Milankovitch cycles are subtle and very long term. The sun changes temperature much faster and more dramatically and this correlates very well with temperature observed here on Earth. CO2 levels are observed to increase behind temperature because of increases in biomass caused by the increased temperatures.
Claudius
1 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2010
The primary effect of the Milankovic cycles is that solar flux distribution during the year changes. This has been a primary driver of many past ice ages. Or do you disagree with that as well?


From Wikipedia:
"Theory incomplete
The Milankovitch theory of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in particular, the largest observed response is at the 100,000-year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this scale, in regard to the ice ages."
jgfox
not rated yet Jan 11, 2010
Two very interesting reports:

1. According to the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, last month had the second greatest December Northern Hemisphere snow cover since records were started in 1966.
Snow extent was measured at 45.86 million sq. km, topped only by 1985 at 45.99 million sq. km. North America set a record December extent at 15.98 million sq. km, and the US also set a December record at 4.16 million sq. km.
Nor is it an isolated trend for the month of December. January, 2008 was the second snowiest January on record, and six out of the last eight Januaries have had above normal snow.

2. He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.
Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. TinyURL.com/yk5v5pf
jgfox
not rated yet Jan 11, 2010
Two very interesting reports:

1. According to the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, last month had the second greatest December Northern Hemisphere snow cover since records were started in 1966.
Snow extent was measured at 45.86 million sq. km, topped only by 1985 at 45.99 million sq. km. North America set a record December extent at 15.98 million sq. km, and the US also set a December record at 4.16 million sq. km.
Nor is it an isolated trend for the month of December. January, 2008 was the second snowiest January on record, and six out of the last eight Januaries have had above normal snow.

2. He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.
Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. TinyURL.com/yk5v5pf
NeilFarbstein
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2010
The snow doesn't last like it used to. In the seventies the snow stayed on the ground weeks at a time without the temperature rising to the melting point. Now whatever snow that falls is gone in few days to a week.
Claudius
1 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2010
The snow doesn't last like it used to. In the seventies the snow stayed on the ground weeks at a time without the temperature rising to the melting point. Now whatever snow that falls is gone in few days to a week.


Well, I had 2 feet of snow on Christmas, and it is still here. Temps are near zero or below all the time. I don't expect to see the ground until the end of April at the soonest.

Of course, you probably don't live in northern Minnesota :)
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2010
The snow doesn't last like it used to. In the seventies the snow stayed on the ground weeks at a time without the temperature rising to the melting point. Now whatever snow that falls is gone in few days to a week.


It also was colder in the 1970s. Everyone admits that.

It was cold enough that some of the same climate scientists who are predicting catastrophic global warming also at that time predicted massive global cooling and another ice age based upon their models. True story.

Some of the "sky is falling!" crowd have changed their tunes from cooling to warming but the warning cry still is the same. :)
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2010
Yes, yes, yes - and everyone has an uncle that smoked 2 packs a day and who didn't die of cancer. Therefore tobacco cannot be harmful, right?

It's puzzling how personal experience of one tiny part of the world over a few days overrules millions of measurements taken over centuries all over the globe and analyzed with a host of statistical methods.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2010
Exactly! What was really of interest was all the people in Europe I saw in various online places panic when they got a blast of Saharan air because of an atmospheric anomaly a couple years ago. So many people fell for the AGW hype then because of how hot it got for a relatively short period of time.

Of course, that tended toward raising the yearly mean and yearly averages. Interestingly enough, measurements taken over the last ten years show a decline in trend over the last decade, which can be hidden in the overall trend by averaging this last decadal data set with data from the end of the LIA (can we not only go up in temperatures overall when we came out from a 'little ice age'?) to the present.

This last decadal measurement also happens to agree with the raw ARGO data the world over. Too bad they are about to smooth away these new sets of data-inherent declines in the very near future.

Interesting is the emergence of a possible 'new' 1,000 year cycle in the ice core data.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2010
Looks like the rampant downrankers are at it again, doing what many AGW adherents do and hiding declines, destroying evidence, and slipping information under the carpet by downranking.

No, we must do all we can to hide the data and information regarding a possibility of another 1,000 year cycle in the ice core data. Interestingly enough, the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period and the current warming period are all about 1,000 years apart.

AlGore forbid that we we should even give thought to the possibility that the current overall warming trend from the LIA might be part of a 'recent' cycle instead of being strictly manmade! :)
VeIanarris
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2010
Looks like the rampant downrankers are at it again, doing what many AGW adherents do and hiding declines, destroying evidence, and slipping information under the carpet by downranking.


Maybe people wouldn't downgrade you if you stopped discussing emails...decline..blah blah blah and started discussing relevant topics in depth and with true understanding. You don't/can't and for that reason you get 1 star, there isn't some "tinfoil, hat wearing Elvis ate my baby" type of conspiracy theory going on. If you persist in incorrectly stating that the last decade was cooler than the previous decade when all the evidence says it most certainly wasn't, then a) you look increasingly ridicluous, and b) you get one star.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2010
I have said precious little about emails in this thread. You must not read very well. In addition, you have not even so much as looked at the data at the other end of the links I have posted. They show a overall decline trend this decade. Period. You just do not like the fact that they do. So, you rampantly downrank posts to hide the data from readers with filtering enabled. That is the real reason you downrank.

Not once have you engaged the data at the end of the links. Think you can do that? :)

What is more, incorporating the results of two past decades tends to skew the numbers because there certainly was a warming trend in the first decade and the first part of the second decade also had one at the beginning. But, if you separate the second decade from the first you get a decline. Temperatures have fallen from the beginning of this decade to the end. Use the web sites posted and take a look at the numbers. Limit the data to this decade and you get a declining trend. Refutation?
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2010
If you persist in incorrectly stating that the last decade was cooler than the previous decade when all the evidence says it most certainly wasn't


The only evidence that shows a warming trend for the last decade came from the CRU, a thoroughly discredited source, but one that is still heavily relied on by PhysOrg climate articles. All other sources show a leveling off or slight cooling.

BTW the CRU emails are very relevant to any discussion about AGW and the idea that industrial CO2 is warming the planet catastrophically, for which there is no valid evidence, unless you wish to credit the CRU as a source of valid evidence.

Plus, engaging in ad-hominem attacks is the last resort of the hopelessly desperate.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2010
...You don't/can't and for that reason you get 1 star, there isn't some "tinfoil, hat wearing Elvis ate my baby" type of conspiracy theory going on. If you persist in incorrectly stating that the last decade was cooler than the previous decade when all the evidence says it most certainly wasn't, then a) you look increasingly ridicluous, and b) you get one star.


Not once have I written that this decade has been cooler than the last. All I have done is point to the fact that this decade has shown an overall cooling trend, using various data. Given that you did not understand what you have read from me, it is proof that you are incapable of understanding what you read, causing you a) to look increasingly ridiculous, and b) to get one star.

Now, quit playing childish games and start actually looking at the data and information posted in the hidden posts above. :)
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2010
A rather funny thing can be displayed concerning the trend for this last decade as well. Visit this site:

http://www.ncdc.n.../na.html

Next, set the parameters as follows:
Data Type: Mean Temperature
Period: Annual
First Year to Display: 1999
Last Year to Display: 2009
Base Period:
BegYr: 1979
EndYr: 2000

Finally, click submit and notice that both 2008 and 2009 actually fell below the 1979-2000 Base Period average temperature. Thoughts?

Quick! Hide this one, too, before anyone else sees... :)
VeIanarris
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2010
Quick! Hide this one, too, before anyone else sees... :)


Ohhh, the boogyman is coming to get you and steal all your data.. The red under the bed is hiding everything.... Emails..blah blah blah

The fact is the last decade was the warmest recorded globally. Your link is to temperatures for the USA except Hawaii....is that your definion of global?
You constantly get your facts confused, always mixing up a regional trend for a global one. This is why you are constantly downgraded, not for personal reasons but because you spout nutjob blog garbage.
VeIanarris
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2010
[q
The only evidence that shows a warming trend for the last decade came from the CRU, a thoroughly discredited source, ... All other sources show a leveling off or slight cooling.
BTW the CRU emails are very relevant to any discussion about AGW .....


Have you figured out why the fuss is dying out about the emails? People are reading them for themselves and finding out that the scientists were being very careful about presenting an accurate picture. As with any conversation string you can cherry pick certain comments which, taken out of context can seem to mean something else. Have you read all the emails or just the nutjob blog suggestions? Deniers try lots of 'tricks' to muddy the waters, note the latest attempt above by suggesting global when they actually used USA temperatures.
Incidentally not only CRU show the last decade was the warmest ever recorded,(despite the strong La Nina in the later part of the decade). The WMO also shows 2009 was the 5th warmest recorded.
VeIanarris
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2010
Incidentally to discredit an entire source of information bacause of out of context email conversations is pathetic. To put it into context consider Piltdown man in 1912 http://www.don-li...own.html
To use your logic we would all be creationists, Darwinian theories would be discredited and Sarah Palin could be president..talk about a nightmare scenario!
VeIanarris
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2010

The only evidence that shows a warming trend for the last decade came from the CRU, a thoroughly discredited source, but one that is still heavily relied on by PhysOrg climate articles. All other sources show a leveling off or slight cooling.


Actually if you look at all sources, both ground and satellite, you will see the trend is up, deniers take the figures up to 2008 which was heavily influenced by the large extended La Nina event and conditions. Graphs including up to December 2009 show an upward trend. Of course if you take January 2000 as the base point then the trend is MUCH higher regardless of which source you use. This is well summarised by the WMO.
As to your point about the emails, if that technology had been around for Piltdown Man in 1912 then you can guarantee the usual paranoid conspiracy theorists subculture will be trying to convince us this proves evolution is a hoax. Amazingly 40% of Americans still believe this...
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2010

Have you figured out why the fuss is dying out about the emails?


Now there's a "decline" in interest in the CRU emails? Should we "hide" it?

It is obvious that the story is being suppressed by the main stream media. So if there is any reason for a lack of interest, that is it. The lawyers, on the other hand, haven't lost interest.

I have read the emails. Commented source code clearly shows the intent to defraud.
Phelankell
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2010
who cares if morocco and parts of the northern sahara are developing into grassland? The dust bowls of the thrities might return to the american southwest permenantly. And the land around Peking is becoming desertified.


That's not desertification, that's a return to the natural state of the land as man made irrigation systems fail.

The southwest was a dust bowl until we went there in the 1800's and started irrigating it.

The snow doesn't last like it used to. In the seventies the snow stayed on the ground weeks at a time without the temperature rising to the melting point. Now whatever snow that falls is gone in few days to a week.
Pfft, move to New England.
VeIanarris
Jan 14, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VeIanarris
Jan 14, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phelankell
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2010
I'm going to disagree with the imposteur here and say the science is not settled. Until it is, skepticism is healthy. Evaluate all data objectively and don't get caught up in the media hype.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2010
[qYour link is to temperatures for the USA except Hawaii....is that your definion of global?
You constantly get your facts confused, always mixing up a regional trend for a global one. This is why you are constantly downgraded, not for personal reasons but because you spout nutjob blog garbage.

Nope, not my definition of global. Nothing I have posted over these recent days comes from blogs. But, it is certain that you visit so-called "climate science" blogs regularly. Your vocabulary matches up pretty well with the demeaning kinds of comments made in such places.

The truth is that you one-rank because you do not want the information seen. Have you seen some of the recent studies on Greenland warming and how it was actually warmer there in 1920-1930 than it was more recently?

Have you actually looked over tree-ring data from Yamal in Siberia and what it implies for the last 5,000 years to the present? I doubt it quite highly.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2010
Additionally, I would have loved to use more global data but when visiting the site that is supposed to provide that information and allow setting of parameters, I get the following:

"Global Climate at a Glance

is undergoing maintenance to improve its function and update its data feed. A timeline for its return will be posted on this page. Please direct any comments to cmb.contact@noaa.gov"

One wonders what sort of updates they are applying and what sort of maintenance they are performing on the site and data.
dachpyarvile
Jan 14, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2010
Of interest is what might appear to be a coincidence. In another thread I posted some information regarding the ARGO data and the declining temperatures the network recorded.

Within the next day a NASA website was altered and updated to claim that they screwed up with the materials and would need to recalibrate the data to account for the cooling trend signal.

Data was used from one of the NOAA sites and the pre-set baseline originally was 1979-2000. A few days after comments concerning that and the fact that in the US the temperatures for 2008 and 2009 fell below the 1979-2000 baseline average were posted here, visiting the site now shows that it has a pre-set baseline with a YearEnd parameter of 1980. Why the drop in the baseline? Of considerable interest is that with this new baseline the temps now can be shown above the baseline average rather than below it as the 1979-2000 baseline average would show.

I find such things fascinating. How about anyone else?
marjon
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2010


The southwest was a dust bowl until we went there in the 1800's and started irrigating it.


There was a reason why ranchers went to southeast AZ in the 1880s, grass. Lots of tall grass.
Overgrazing brought in more desert plants like cholla and mesquite trees.
Stop by the Desert Museum in Tucson sometime. They have a nice presentation on the subject.

Also, the Indians in the Phoenix area had developed a substantial irrigation network hundreds of years ago.
denijane
5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2010
Contrarily to the cold wave in USA and West-central Europe, East Europe is experiencing historical warm wave. So warm that our winter ski tourism is going to hell! So it's pretty obvious the climate went crazy.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2010
Readers might be interested in taking a look at the GISP2 data to 2000.

http://www.ncdc.n...2000.gif

Notice the sudden drop in temperatures during the Younger Dryas and also notice the differences in temperatures from about 5000 years to the present. I will not interpret the data for the reader. It pretty much tells its own story.
Phelankell
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 17, 2010
Contrarily to the cold wave in USA and West-central Europe, East Europe is experiencing historical warm wave. So warm that our winter ski tourism is going to hell! So it's pretty obvious the climate went crazy.

But if it is "going crazy" the highly tuned predicative models didn't predict anything on the measure of what we're seeing.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2010
But if it is "going crazy" the highly tuned predicative models didn't predict anything on the measure of what we're seeing.


Isn't that the truth!? In addition, predictions of cold were on the order of catastrophic cold all over the Northern Hemisphere. Over time the models have been revised to hide catastrophism and when it gets colder modellers then say, 'See! We predicted this.'

But, the changes to the models have been gradual enough so as not to be seen unless one watches carefully.

For years we were told that the Sun has nothing to do with it. Now, we see otherwise and, as a result, the modellers now say that they predicted that, too.
VeIanarris
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2010
How can the sun have anything to do with it, a simple look at the facts show verry little correlation between global mean temperatures and TSI since 1970 and absolutely none since 1990,in fact the last decade was noteworth of having a very prolonged solar minimum but was still the warmest decade recorded http://www.woodfo...set:1366
Phelankell
Jan 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2010
Veianarris,

Watch out for that CRU and related data derived therefrom. Until it is verified as accurate it could come back and bite you in the rear end.

I'd also suggest consultation of the so-called climategate emails. One of them is virtually a how-to on how to bring out and make visible the sun's solar cycles in the temperature data. I'll have to go back and dig through the 1,073 text files to find the specific email but you might find it of interest to note that such an email exists.

Oh, you did not hear about that? I am not surprised the public was not told about that... :)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2010
Rather than refer to the email I decided to link instead to the following file:

http://www.amath....007b.pdf

Take a look at the graph on the top of page 2 of this study. Note that the TSI and temperature data line up quite nicely in cycles.

Now, let me now state that the authors of the study very much believe in AGW and even go so far as to use this information to claim that radiative forcing of the solar cycle will actually make global warming worse as the sun reaches the next maximum. I wanted to make that clear.

My only purpose in referring to the paper at all is to show that an 11-year cycle signal with at least 95% confidence can be seen between the lines.

How significant for climate science this will be in the future remains to be seen.