Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 Next
Comments 122751 to 122800:
-
Jeff Freymueller at 14:28 PM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
This may be off-topic, but it is inspired by Figure 2 in the post. Here's another question that I have been wondering about after seeing Figure 2. There is a big spike in 1998 (maybe 1997-1999) in water vapor over the ocean. 1997-1998 was a whopping El Nino year, and there was some pretty amazing rainfall in some places that year. I experience some of that in Tibet that August, where we were trying to work (but not having much success) because it was the worst flooding in many years due to the heavy rainfall. One of my students was in Ecuador in early 1998, and they were also getting the worst floods in years. The same time period also shows up as an anomalous when you look at the earth's oblateness (deviation from being a sphere). See this paper for example: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5600/1975 What's interesting about this is that the change in oblateness has the look of an event, a short-term change opposite to the usual trend as opposed to a change in trend, which has made the explanation advanced in the paper somewhat controversial. Since that time, as far as I know, oblateness has continued to decrease following the post-glacial rebound trend. I'm posting this question here because I wonder how many other global-averaged quantities had unusual values that year (global temperature was another)? Just fishing for ideas here and looking for replies about climate-related quantities because I can find the solid-earth ones easily enough myself. Here's the abstract of the Dickey et al paper: Earth's dynamic oblateness (J2) has been decreasing due to postglacial rebound (PGR). However, J2 began to increase in 1997, indicating a pronounced global-scale mass redistribution within Earth's system. We have determined that the observed increases in J2 are caused primarily by a recent surge in subpolar glacial melting and by mass shifts in the Southern, Pacific, and Indian oceans. When these effects are removed, the residual trend in J2 (-2.9 x 10-11 year-1) becomes consistent with previous estimates of PGR from satellite and eclipse data. The climatic significance of these rapid shifts in glacial and oceanic mass, however, remains to be investigated. -
Jeff Freymueller at 14:09 PM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
#30 chirscanaris, in many parts of high mountain Asia, agriculture is dependent on glacier melt because of the timing of the rain. The snowpack melts too quickly in spring, and they need the extended runoff from spring melting of glaciers. They can't afford to wait until the monsoon rains come to plant because the growing season would be too short. The specifics are no doubt place-dependent, but they might need the timing of rain to change in addition to the amount of precip. For your sea level question, I think the mass of water vapor that can stay in the atmosphere is small enough that it's a fairly small affect. As for the Sahara and Gobi, that's a good question and I would like to know the answer as well. If precipitation patterns change, some places will come out better off and some will end up worse off (either getting drier, or getting too soggy). I don't know if the winners and losers of that can be predicted with any confidence (the WG2 report of the IPCC is probably the place to look). -
gallopingcamel at 14:00 PM on 8 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Tom Dayton, my point is that the AGW predictions of global temperature trends do not fit the facts. The recent cooling trend baffles the Hockey Team. Simply a case of reality trumping theory. Speculations on why the AGW predictions are wrong are indeed distractions, but interesting none the less. Lindzen and Trenberth are experts in climate science, yet they disagree; neither of can claim sufficient expertise to know which of them is closest to the truth. -
oracle2world at 13:59 PM on 8 March 2010There is no consensus
Dear Riccardo My point was that science is not "consensus". Science is Occam's Razor. The least long-winded explanation of a dataset is the current model. Folks in the scientific world who are chicken to speak out, is not "consensus". Stomach ulcers were thought to be caused by emotional distress, the consensus belief. Based on a plausible theory, with no one bothering to be skeptical about it. In 1982 a physician Barry Marshall proposed that a previously unidentified bacterium Helicobacter pylori was the cause. It fit the data better, which led to new treatment, that made some drug companies VERY unhappy. Folks back then thought Marshall was completely off his rocker to challenge "the consensus". Exactly like AGW skeptics today are thought to be unhinged. Actually the only question in the whole of AGW, is whether anthropogenic CO2 emissions account for temperature data better than the random variances inherent in climate. Right now, they don't. -
oracle2world at 13:37 PM on 8 March 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
That carbon cycle from the IPCC AR4 graphic? Looks a bit different from another one from our friends at the UN: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/3158.php In short, how did 6 gigatonnes a few years ago now become 26 gigatonnes of human CO2 releases?Response: The UN graphic uses units of carbon. I use units of carbon dioxide. The difference is fairly simple - 1 gigatonne of carbon equals 3.66 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. I explain the conversion process in more detail at Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels. -
oracle2world at 13:27 PM on 8 March 2010Was Greenland really green in the past?
So let me get this straight. A warmer Greenland was a "local phenomenon", but twelve trees in a Siberian forest suffice to represent centuries of global temperature? -
oracle2world at 13:07 PM on 8 March 2010There is no consensus
Here is an endorsement from the AMA. Glad to know this counts as important, even if off the beaten track of the AMA's expertise. In other words, professional society endorsements are about as useful as a professional ball player's endorsement of a particular brand of chewing gum. American Medical Association In 2008, the American Medical Association issued a policy statement on global climate change declaring that they: Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively affect public health. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change -
chris1204 at 13:06 PM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
johnd: I think predictions of a coming ice age based on one very cold and snowy winter may be a touch premature. However,if the snow cover proves unusually enduring, you may be onto something because albedo and like mechanisms begin to come into play. jimalakirti: the reference to the earlier postings on Himalayan Glaciers is very much to the point. The survival of these glaciers is very much monsoon dependent. Irrespective of glacier survival, increased water vapour and increased precipitation should predict less dire consequences for population living in areas dependent of Himalayan water run off. Or do they? Satellite data indicating rising sea levels notwithstanding, if increased temperature leads to increased atmospheric water, does most of the increased water vapour stay in the atmosphere thus providing a negative feedback on sea level rise? Or does the water simply cycle faster with no mitigating impact on sea levels? Assuming some rise in precipitation, would increased rainfall provide welcome change to the world's driest areas ranging from the Sahara to the Gobi? Three potentially very different implications flowing from the one phenomenon, the relationship between temperature, water vapour, and precipitation. -
oracle2world at 12:53 PM on 8 March 2010Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Glad the consensus has determined hurricane frequency should be retired to the ash heap of arguments. So how did this one slip through the consensus? ---- Global warming is causing more frequent hurricanes in the North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, according to a study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The increased frequency of tropical cyclones ``is largely a response'' to a 1 degree Celsius rise in sea water temperatures since 1905 that was caused by greenhouse gases, the study found. Since 1995, the North Atlantic has experienced an average of 15 tropical storms a year, of which eight became strong enough to be called hurricanes. That compares with 10 tropical storms and five hurricanes per year from 1930 to 1994, the report says. ``There is an 80 percent chance that the majority of the current increases have been impacted by global warming,'' said Greg Holland, director of the research center in Boulder, Colorado, and co-author of the study. ``The bad news is that we've gone up in numbers overall, and in the proportion of major hurricanes as well.'' -- http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=81144 -
oracle2world at 12:31 PM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
"... 2009 was the second hottest year on record." The key phrase here is "on record". Now when you state "the record" doesn't go back very far, and isn't comprehensive to start with, THEN you can go into your snowfall arguments. What you can take away from snowageddon, is that people don't like cold weather or heavy snow. Which is why global warming is a political non-starter. Given a choice folks like warm weather and will do what it takes to adapt. -
yocta at 12:21 PM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
johnd # 19 You mention the predictions made in the 1970s. I don't know if John Cook has a pagehere but this site has a good history of what actually was predicted in the 1970s. It doesn't appear to be the clear cut cooling as one might get the impression of. http://laymans-guide.com/new-ice-age/Response: I do have a page on the subject: Ice age predicted in the 70s. The page you linked to, A New Ice Age, is an outstanding summary of the whole 'ice age in the 1970s' situation. I've added it to the list of links about the 1970s ice age predictions. -
garythompson at 12:17 PM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
#18 - Riccardo - Can you send that link again, it appears to be in error (can't click on it). thanks! -
carrot eater at 11:29 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Similarly to some others, I don't see any particular need to discuss 'snowmageddon' in a climate context. Weather will always happen, and will surprise now and then. Now, if we start seeing 'snowmageddon' every year for the next 10 years, then we might take a closer if there is any climate context. -
Ani at 10:39 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
hello, happens so the AO broke and the arctic dumped, it happens every few years. thats weather. since i assume differential heating is the cause for most weather i would look at the temp changes near the arctic. this is purely a guess but its something a meteorologist can look at since weather is forecasting the noise and climate science is doing away with the noise. eventually we will get some overlap the two sciences will complement each other. -
EOttawa at 10:30 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
libertarianromanticideal, The article from the Independent that I was responding to focused primarily on Britain. Several paragraphs in that article (from 2000) did indeed cite anecdotal evidence of less wintery conditions, including snowfalls. -
captain_heroic44 at 10:19 AM on 8 March 2010CO2 lags temperature
Why does CO2 drop off when temperature goes back down? -
GFW at 10:05 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Sordnay, I don't know about globally (I'm sure someone has done it) but for the continental US, Tamino at OpenMind showed quite conclusively that the annual snow cover is decreasing, but that that decrease is entirely attributable to earlier spring melting and "higher" (up mountains) melting through spring and summer. Winter snow cover isn't changing to any statistically significant degree. -
GFW at 10:01 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
This (northern hemisphere) winter had some unusual weather patterns. It was warmer than average overall, but colder than average over the major population centers known as Europe and the eastern US. So the warmth was mostly over the oceans. It's pretty easy to see what had to happen - the warm air over the Atlantic would get loaded up with moisture, and then, following whatever regional circulation was present, would get swept over colder land and air masses - voila, surprising amounts of snow in the UK and the eastern US. -
shargash at 09:54 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
ptbrown31, it isn't just the air temperature; the water temperature plays a big role too. You are right to emphasize that snowstorms are weather events, not climate. But it is also true that storms will tend to be more intense, the warmer the atmosphere and the warmer the oceans. -
johnd at 09:49 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Is there any chance of posting a chart comparing the historic % atmospheric water vapour against CO2 levels from the last ice age to present? If the water vapour content of the atmosphere is a direct function of temperature, and CO2 is the primary forcing agent of temperature, such a chart should illustrate how well the CO2/water vapour relationship has been maintained as the planet has warmed. -
Sordnay at 09:43 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
John #10 The case with -15 to -5 is clear, and I do agree. You also say "Until it becomes so warm that snow is not possible" so it seems obvious to me that where temperature where (at preindustrial times) just close to minimum in order to snow, now after the experienced warming, that it should be harder to see snow, then the more warming the less area covered, right? Is that what it's happening? There is a statistical correlation between global warming anomaly and snow cover anomaly? If there is not, should anyone make any statement at all? -
ptbrown31 at 09:41 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
The point you make in this post, while it is true in general, does not apply to the so called "snowmageddon" events. Both of those major east coast snow storms were associated with COLDER than average temperatures in those regions. Because of this you can not imply that they were caused by warmer air and hence more water vapor. I think a better way to address snowstorms and global warming is to emphasize that weather is not climate. The 2000's decade set 2X more record high temperatures than record low temperatures (in the United States) but that does not mean that record low temperatures are no longer seen - that is simply weather. http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp In general, great website. Keep up the good work!Response: Thanks for the comment. I wasn't trying to make the point that "global warming caused snowmageddon" but that "record snowfall does not contradict global warming". Perhaps I could have communicated that more clearly. When I was writing the post, I had a whole bit about weather vs climate with the weighted dice metaphor but cut it for brevity's sake. Maybe I should have left it in but fortunately I can always include it in the Record snowfall disproves global warming skeptic argument. -
johnd at 09:40 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
These recent events are merely indicators that the natural climate cycle is about to, or has, entered another cooling cycle which will last several decades. Just as the predictions back in the 70's of a coming ice age were made by projecting from the then ending downward cooling cycle, the more recent doom and gloom global warming scenarios were being made by projecting from a soon to end upward warming cycle. More realistic projections can be made from the trend established by a number of these multi-decadal natural cycles rather than data obtained from the ridiculously short part cycle time frames that have been used merely because new technology has only allowed more accurate data to be collected over such a short period. I often wonder what would have been the case if the current technology for data collection had been available immediately post WW2 and used to make long term predictions. Perhaps it would have given the global cooling predictions the same credibility as the current global warming predictions have. There is no doubt that there is a long term warming trend, but at times the natural cycles may enhance it, and other times overwhelm it, and perhaps we are presently in the transition of moving from a period of the former to the latter.Response: The best type of climate projection comes from a physical understanding of what's happening in our climate. The 1970s is a good example. Some looked at the cooling trend and projected continued cooling into the future. However, others looked at the rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and aware of the greenhouse effect it causes, predicted that temperatures would start to warm. For this reason, the majority of papers in the 1970s that looked at future climate predicted warming due to rising CO2 levels. -
Riccardo at 09:28 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
garythompson, the 18 W/m^2 is where we are now, i.e. the sum of short and long wavelength effects. What matters for the future is how this number might change with warming. On the cloud feedback there's still a lot to learn, but generally it is considered to be positive. -
Peter Hogarth at 09:14 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
16.RSVP at 07:03 AM on 8 March, 2010 I'm sure there will be an albedo effect, but it's going to be relatively small in Winter. May be oversimplifying, but extra snow cover in places that normally don't see much is not exactly long lived once the clouds get out of the way and a relatively small extra percentage of the Earths surface is affected. If it got deep enough (or cold enough) to stay until summer in NH, then we'd have an issue, eg Greenland throws back a lot of incoming sunlight in early summer. I'll have a look for papers on this though. -
garythompson at 08:53 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
good article here john, thanks. in my opinion this just shows how compicated weather is and how little we know (or at least I know). in my opinion, and in the opinion of others who have posted here, this increased evaporation which will lead to increased precipitation (and clouds). Correct me if i'm wrong but won't that be a negative feedback (not only from the sun reflection from the clouds but also the snow albedo)? in reading the peer reviewed papers, there seems to be great uncertainty in the models with how to handle clouds. in Ramanathan's paper (http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/RamAmbio.pdf), he outlines very well that a good estimate based on ERBE observations show clouds have a net cooling of around 18 W/m^2 which dwarfs the positive feedback from CO2 which is 2.5 W/m^2 but we don't know how clouds will respond to increased SST. But if the increase in SST causes more evaporation and more clouds wouldn't this cancel out any CO2 effect?Response: If clouds were imposing a cooling forcing of 18 W/m2, the Earth would be experiencing a dramatic, negative energy imbalance and global temperatures would be plummeting precipitiously. That is not what is happening - the planet has a positive energy imbalance of around 0.8 W/m2.
However, the change in cloud cover has had a cooling effect - it's estimated the radiative forcing from 1850 to 2000 was a cooling of -0.7 W/m2. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head how much of that is estimated from increased water vapor - my understanding is the main contributor to increased cloud cover is increased aerosols in the atmosphere which enhances cloud formation.
Since 2000, several different satellite datasets show very little trend in cloud cover (Loeb 2007a):
There's a more detailed discussion on albedo at The albedo effect and global warming. -
joseph449008 at 08:14 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
The earlier article talks about positive feedback due to methane, but here nothing about negative feedback due to higher albedo produced by snow cover.
No one said all-year-round global snow cover will increase with global warming. It's clear that during glacial periods, there was more ice globally. It's also clear that during very warm historical periods (e.g. the Eocene-Paleocene Thermal Maximum), there was little ice, and hence the Earth's albedo was lower. It's a positive feedback overall. -
Andy Skuce at 07:20 AM on 8 March 2010New observations find underwater Arctic Shelf is perforated and venting methane
CBDunkerson wrote: "the reason that surface concentrations (and thus atmospheric release) of methane are highest in shallower waters is BECAUSE they are shallow... there is less water for the methane to disperse through. {snip] As to geological processes producing methane... look at the ocean floor map. What could possibly produce that much methane that consistently over that large an area? We're not seeing isolated spots of methane release, but rather an entire region producing methane. That clearly points to release from the permafrost due to warming." CBD: The maps of methane concentrations are actually not that consistent over the area, whether measured near the sea bed, in surface waters or in the atmosphere. The maps show elongated N-S stripes*, whereas the main trend of the bathymetry is roughly at right angles to this. However, I do think that melting permafrost is the most likely and, perhaps, the only explanation for the observed methane; I would just like to better understand the influence, if any, of the deep geology. I note that the authors report using a chromatograph to analyse the gas but they don't mention observing any ethane or other alkanes. They do say that they intend to do some isotopic work in future. *The N-S trends in their maps actually look a little suspicious to me and I wonder to what extent they have been influenced by the orientation of some of the sampling stations along N-S transects (Fig 1A) and the authors' use of a Kriging gridding process. The coastline on Fig 1A is different to those shown on 1B,C and D, particularly for the islands, but this is just drafting error. None of this is likely material to their main point but I wouldn't be surprised to see it picked up and blown out of proportion by a certain mining engineer. -
RSVP at 07:03 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
The earlier article talks about positive feedback due to methane, but here nothing about negative feedback due to higher albedo produced by snow cover.Response: This is a good question. While there has been an increase in extreme snowstorm events in some colder regions, this doesn't mean snow cover is showing a long-term increase. In fact, the long-term trend for Northern Hemisphere is a decreasing trend (see Tamino's Cherry Snow for a detailed analysis of snow cover trends). In fact, one paper does examine the question of feedback from changing snow cover: Assessing Snow Albedo Feedback in Simulated Climate Change (Qu 2004). So if there is any feedback from changing snow cover, it's a positive feedback. -
shargash at 06:52 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Come on, guys. This isn't that hard to understand. If there's more moisture in the air, there's going to be more precipitation. If it is cold enough to snow, that precipitation will be in the form of snow. There hasn't been enough warming to banish winter yet. It may snow less often, but when it snows, it will snow more (on average). That's just the laws of physics. Learn them. -
John Mason at 06:28 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Nickle, # 6: This is entirely likely to occur. The most basic laws of physics expect it to: 1) warmer SSTs = more evaporation 2) warmer air (even if it's -5 instead of -15) carries more moisture Add in a nor-easter, where the air is warmed as it circulates across the Gulf Stream then piles back into the Eastern Seaboard and meets cool arctic Northerlies, and Hey Presto! One big dumping of snow! Until it becomes so warm that snow is not possible, expect bigger & bigger dumpings! Cheers - John -
libertarianromanticideal at 06:01 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Hi EOttawa you say: "Dr. Viner was not that far off. The article you referenced (from 2000), quotes Dr. Viner as saying that heavy snow will return occasionally and that "Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time"." Are you saying that heavy snow fall did disappear for awhile and now just returned? Rutgers University Global Snow Lab numbers (http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/moncov.nhland.txt) doesn't support that. The Snow lab numbers (1967-2010) show that the just completed decade (2001-2010) had the snowiest Northern Hemisphere winters on record. The just completed winter was also the second snowiest on record, exceeded only by 1978. Average winter snow extent during the past decade was greater than 45,500,000 km2, beating out the 1960s by about 70,000 km2, and beating out the 1990s by nearly 1,000,000 km2. - Cheers, Christopher Skyi http://libertarianromanticideal.com/ -
jimalakirti at 05:59 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
I recommend the earlier post on this site about glaciers. Some glaciers in the Himalaya region are growing because above about 15,000 feet or so all precipitation is in the form of snow, and the monsoons are being redirected to parts of the mountains so that they will get a lot more precipitation. What happens to the glaciers from which the monsoon is being removed? Well they will shrink. Some may even disappear within 20 years or so. By the way, that posting has about 80 or so of the most absurd trash one can imagine. Don't go there if you aren't prepared to have your head buzz and your ears ring. -
Riccardo at 05:53 AM on 8 March 2010CO2 effect is saturated
mazibuko, the problems with those guys is that their reasoning looks straightforward and anyone can understand it. The mistake he makes becomes apparent only if you know the physics. So common people tend to trust those bogus falsifications. The problem with that "falsification" is not just related to the single band he considers, he arbitrarly put a limit to the amount of radiation CO2 can absorb. This is not true both experimentally (as shown in this post) and theoretically even for the 15 micron band alone; and it would not matter anyway. -
mazibuko at 05:19 AM on 8 March 2010CO2 effect is saturated
What do you make of this claim? http://jimpeden.blogspot.com/2009/11/norm-kalmanovich-on-global-warming-hoax.html I haven't read it thoroughly, but it seems like they are missing the fact that CO2 is absorbed at several different wavelengths. The post devolves into the usual questioning of motives, but I was curious to hear thoughts on the main claim about the 14.77 micron band being used up. Thanks, M -
Peter Hogarth at 05:17 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Nice chart! It was also unusually cold, and we had higher than recent average levels of snow here in the UK this winter. I have bodged together a quick regional temperature chart sequence on UK (CET) variations and trend. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqIQfD2UKAs I haven't tried to correlate with regional precipitation yet to make it more relevent to this post, but the UK Meteorological Office have excellent records, and may have some graphics somewhere. -
Jeff Freymueller at 04:16 AM on 8 March 2010New observations find underwater Arctic Shelf is perforated and venting methane
#46 chriscanaris, my understanding of the term "Socratic dialogue" matches what the short wikipedia entry says: discussion of moral or philosophical problems, answering and asking questions. As a method of rational thinking, it's great. But scientific questions are not answered by dialogue. They are answered by data. Socrates was not an experimentalist. The Socratic Method was not the Scientific Method. It seems to me that you have redefined Socratic dialogue, although we seem to agree that the scientific method is the way forward to answering many questions. -
jimalakirti at 03:53 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
For nearly 60 years I have been seriously involved in some way with snow. I was a skier and a mountain climber when my body allowed it. By the time I was 20 I was interested in avalanches and winter travel and survival and rescue. I kept daily high and low temperature and precipitation records so I would understand the history of the snowpacks in the back country I hoped to visit over the winter. So I understood better than most people the temperatures and other conditions under which snow fell, arranged itself on the ground, and metamorphosed through a series of magical transformations — many of them dangerous to winter travelers. For about ten years I taught snow and avalanche courses for the National Ski Patrol. And I taught that the heaviest snows, those that piled up snow most rapidly, fell at temperatures somewhere between 25 and 35 degrees F. I explained why snow that falls when it is much colder is too fine and powdery to amount to much until redistributed by wind. And on and on. And yet. And yet I have had students who had been skiers for many years who seem never to have noticed this effect, and who would want to argue with me in class that the colder the climate the more snow it got. They would point out that there are glaciers hundreds of feet deep at the poles, and perpetual snows on a lot of mountain tops where it was noticeably and measurably colder than down here in the balmy valley. Explaining that in these special locations any precipitation they get is snow, the small amounts of snow that fall annually can stay (or used to be able to stay) there for centuries upon centuries. I had some students who just never bought it. And there will be a lot of deniers who will simply refuse to buy this. There are a lot of cable TV talk show hosts who will argue that the scientists just made this excuse up after the fact to cover their butts. Wait and see. A harder sell is why have all my tomatoes and strawberries from Florida frozen? -
Sordnay at 03:37 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
EOttawa, right, he is saying both, it won't snow and it will, he is betting both on black and red at the same time. The problem is that snow area covered and volume aren't being affected too much, if anything they are both increasing, so telling that snow will become a rare event one year that snows relatively less than normal, and the oposite when is greater than normal, that seems biased. -
libertarianromanticideal at 03:31 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Hi MikeTheInfidel "Can you provide an example from the peer-reviewed literature where anyone was saying that (i.e., Lack of snow was billed in the past as proof for global warming)?" 1. A 2005 Columbia University study titled “WILL CLIMATE CHANGE AFFECT SNOW COVER OVER NORTH AMERICA?” ran nine climate models used by the IPCC, and all nine predicted that North American winter snow cover would decline significantly, starting in about 1990. See: http://www.eee.columbia.edu/research-projects/water_resources/climate-change-snow-cover/index.html 2. Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties. However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. (see: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html) Yes, the world is warming, but it appears that AGW claims of the demise of snowfall have been exaggerated. And things are not looking very good for the climate model predictions of declining snowfall in the 21st century. - Cheers, Christopher Skyi http://libertarianromanticideal.com/ -
EOttawa at 03:08 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Sordnay - It seems Dr. Viner was not that far off. The article you referenced (from 2000), quotes Dr. Viner as saying that heavy snow will return occasionally and that "Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time". Coincidentally, a line from a BBC item in January 2010 was: "Heavy snow and icy roads are causing chaos across most of the UK" -
Tom Dayton at 02:56 AM on 8 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel, you did write one thing that at least prompts my following response that is on the topic of this thread: I had pointed you to a detailed, factual, technical, peer-reviewed rebuttal of Lindzen and Choi's claims that you were touting. You could have responded that you are unconvinced by the content of that rebuttal and will post your technical objections either on that RealClimate thread or on the Skeptical Science thread Climate Sensitivity is Low, and invited me to follow you to those threads to continue discussion. Instead you responded only by writing that you are more impressed by Lindzen's than Trenberth's demeanors in TV appearances. You did not even say that Lindzen's factual arguments in those TV appearances were more complete--just that you liked his demeanor better. Your response is a good illustration of the topic of this thread: attempts to distract us from the scientific realities. -
Sordnay at 02:38 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
I agree, someone who claims that, might have either low understanding of climate, or a biased view. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html -
RSVP at 02:26 AM on 8 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Any relation to Baltic Sea incident? -
Tom Dayton at 01:37 AM on 8 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel, you insisted that the GCMs have failed. I don't understand why you insist on that. Instead of me repeating the evidence for GCM success here, I'll just point you to the Skeptical Science argument Models Are Unreliable. If you want to argue or discuss that topic, that thread is the appropriate place. -
Mal Adapted at 01:16 AM on 8 March 2010New observations find underwater Arctic Shelf is perforated and venting methane
Chriscanaris says: "Furthermore, treating the whole patient (planet) calls for consideration of people's wants and aspirations including the aspirations of the third world. Our failure to do so no doubt contributed to the failure of Copenhagen." It seems clear (to me, at least) that global warming will cause disproportionate harm to third world people. First-world people, on average, have a greater cushion of resources to help them adapt to rising sea-level, regional changes in rainfall, summer heatwaves, etc. Much of the population of the third world, however, lives close to the edge of survival, such that any change in conditions means disaster for them. This is the crux of the ethical problem presented by AGW, in my view.Response: "It seems clear (to me, at least) that global warming will cause disproportionate harm to third world people"
This view is borne out in the peer-reviewed literature although not just for the reasons you suppose. See The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries (Mendelsohn 2006):"We predict that poor countries will suffer the bulk of the damages from climate change. Although adaptation, wealth, and technology may influence distributional consequences across countries, we argue that the primary reason that poor countries are so vulnerable is their location. Countries in the low latitudes start with very high temperatures. Further warming pushes these countries ever further away from optimal temperatures for climate sensitive economic sectors."
In addition, developing countries happen to be those most vulnerable to sea level rise, as examined in The impact of sea level rise on developing countries: a comparative analysis (Dasgupta 2008). -
thingadonta at 22:54 PM on 7 March 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
I suspect you have largely ignored variations in solar cycles on the earth's climate, whilst focussing on internal effects/variations of the earth's climate (El Nino, volcanoes etc). Increase radiation from the sun and you get non-linear chaotic effects on earth (references needed). The earth does not respond in a linear fashion to changes in the sun's output (references needed). You have assumed the sun/solar variations have a more or less peripheral/minor effect. They don't; any solar variation is hugely amplified on earth, and also, importantly, chaotically amplified (non linear response). Isn't it a bit like droppping a pebble into an already turbulent stream; the external influence is not only amplified, it creates even more chaos?. -
chris1204 at 20:53 PM on 7 March 2010New observations find underwater Arctic Shelf is perforated and venting methane
I can see this is all going to get bigger than Ben Hur so I'll say no more on the topic after this (collective sigh of relief from all and sundry). I'll leave off biting the bait on large scale family planning beyond noting that family size tends to decrease following increased prosperity and not vice versa. However, when it comes to education and health, our foreign aid budgets are laughably miniscule. I do think we have to ask ourselves about the resilience of natural systems - in my own discipline, medicine, and specifically psychiatry, treating the the illness without treating the whole patient and taking into account their strengths (ie, resilience) is poor medicine indeed. Furthermore, treating the whole patient (planet) calls for consideration of people's wants and aspirations including the aspirations of the third world. Our failure to do so no doubt contributed to the failure of Copenhagen. At this point, of course, the argument enters the realm of philosophy (which is not the same as faith). However, we can't escape philosophy. The only reason we are putting so much energy into this discussion is because we would like a good life for ourselves and our children's children (a philosophical notion) for which a well functioning planet is a sine qua non. If we were not looking to the self-interest of humanity, future climatological outcomes are no more than a scientific curiosity on par with past climatic events. -
mikeh1 at 20:40 PM on 7 March 2010Models are unreliable
I have been meaning to post here for a while after reading the post from Poptech who claims that "Only Computer Illiterates believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming". I am a computer scientist with 30 years experience who has no doubt that the theory of AGW is correct. I want to deal specifically with Poptech's claims about computer science as he claims to be an "expert". As most of his post consists of unintelligible rant it is difficult to nail precisely what "straw man" the hapless Poptech is railing against but he does appear to have an issue with physicists or in particular climate scientists who program in FORTRAN. Computers have been used for solving problems in Physics since the beginning of the computer age. In fact most universities run degree courses which allow you to major in Physics and Computing. I did a variation of that degree in the mid 1970s majoring in Applied Maths, Physics and Computer Science. There is a whole range of computer algorithms designed for solving complex mathematical problems using computers and as any physicist will tell you mathematics is the language of physics. He also claims that because some climate scientists use the computer language FORTRAN, their code must be full of bugs. Why? Because Poptech cannot understand FORTRAN code? Because FORTRAN has been around for a while? He does not say. I no longer use FORTRAN but in my experience ability and training is a much better guide to good programming than choice of language. The principals of Computer Science are universal and not tied to any specific computer language. In fact computers are language agnostic as they execute machine code. Many of the changes to programming methodology over the years have addressed the issue of software bugs by promoting the use of tested library components or frameworks, structured coding techniques, the use of design patterns and object oriented programming techniques. That is we break our complex code down into smaller testable units and ensure that they work correctly by testing them rigorously before combining them into the whole. This does not guarantee bug free code but these approaches have been proven to reduce bugs substantially. All these approaches are available to the FORTRAN programmer with the added advantage of having access to a well proven library of scientific and statistical routines. Does our "expert" check every time he flies as to what programming language the aircraft's control system is written in? Most are written in a specialist programming language called ADA which is of the same vintage as FORTRAN. His rant against climate models is really a rant against science of any form. But there is a built in uncertainty in nature so there will always be questions that cannot be answered with absolute precision whether those questions are answered using computer models or with pen and paper. It is the reason why every scientist needs a good handle on statistics because many questions can only be answered within a range of certainty. Sometimes a general question can be answered with more certainty than a more specific question. Actuaries working for health insurance companies use statistical computer models to work out the average health costs of a range of population groups so their employers can set insurance premiums. But they cannot tell you precisely how many people will get sick next week or more specifically if you are likely to need medical care. So it is with climate and weather. Contrary to Poptech's assertion, weather forecasts have actually become much more accurate over the last few years. With better computer climate models, use of satellite measurements and faster computers, weather bureaus now offer five day forecasts which were not reliable enough in past decades. Ironically some forecasters complain that climate change is affecting their forecasts as the changing climate is altering many of the assumptions based on the historical experience that is built into the models. Computer models which deal with climate change have not been designed to forecast the weather over the next century. They cannot tell you the summer temperature in 2050. They are tools for examining climate science the physics of which, contrary to Poptech's opinion, is well understood. They are able to give a range of projections which examine the effects of C02 as well as other factors on the long term climate. In that they have been remarkably successful. -
Riccardo at 20:02 PM on 7 March 2010New observations find underwater Arctic Shelf is perforated and venting methane
chriscanaris, the question you continue to ask ("how much is too much") is more philosophical than scientific. Whatever answer one may give is always questionable, as i said before. Science may tell you that beyond a certain temperature you'll get this or that effect; if you further increase temperature those other effects will come into play; and so on. So, how much is too much? Here you go into philosophiical and/or political and/or ethical ground. If i got it right, you do not question AGW theory. You agree that temperature is rising due to human activities and that it will have a negative impact on human welfare. If this is true, you questions appears to be more on resilience and "affordable damage" the on the science of climate. Why you should you find an answer in climatology? Science already told us what we can confidently say about the evolution of climate, it's time to make a choice an to take up the responsibility (and the costs). Remember, doing nothing or postponing the choice is a choice as well, with the same burden of responsibility and costs.
Prev 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 Next
