Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[Leonhard]

Where I live in Britain the weather in December has often been colder, sometimes very much colder.

I cannot speak for Europe as a whole.

Extremely mild winters here for the past many years. Saw almost no snow this year. Same as last year.

I remember three feets of snow in 1993.

[tabibito]

Where I live in Britain the weather in December has often been colder, sometimes very much colder.

I cannot speak for Europe as a whole.

Ah - but can people in London now walk across the water (well, ice) of the Thames, side to side, during mid-winter, as was possible in times past.

[Leonhard]

more evidence of the AGW crowd using "weather" as proof of AGW but when antiAGW mention cold weather, it is "weather, not climate"

Yet the the AGW crowd here will never admit the double standard. Tails they win, heads we lose...

I think both of you fail to realize that the truth of Anthropogentic Global Warming is not based on a couple of weather events. And in that article Dr. Michael Mann was describing how the US could get colder for a shorter while, and yet this still be consistent with the Earth in general getting warmer. Basically you guys got a cold front rolling down over you.

Is it evidence against the Earth getting warmer? Sure. If it happened across the entire globe, but most of the US had a very mild winter up to that point, and in the rest of the world there's been mostly very mild winters. There certainly was here. And in Russia, China, Australia, in the Oceans and on the Poles.

Climatologists do have a concern that the increasing temperatures will bring with it more extreme weather phenomenons. A higher temperature means there's more moisture in the atmosphere (this is undisputed by anyone). More moisture means more rain for instance. The correlation with hurricanes is more complex, and much more discussed but that remains a possibility.

You might be interpreting this as the "heads I win tails you lose".

However that's not about whether the Earth is getting warmer, that's about the question "will we see more extreme weather when the Earth gets warmer"

So you guys are mixing oranges and apples.

The facts of Global Warming are based upon a combination of the land temperature record and the ocean temperature record for several large nation. These datasets are then corrected for temperature biases (time of observation bias, location shift bias, gridded-vs-ungridded bias, temperature change bias being the four big ones) using the most recent measurements as the baseline. That's done using a publicly available algorithm, which has been fully disclosed and supplied along with the raw data it works on. And that record shows warming.

That's it anthropogenic is based on the fact that humans are responsible the majority of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Natural processes such as the decay of leaves in fall will shortly produce more CO2 than us, but this is counter balanced by leaves growing in the spring. Nature itself adds almost no carbon into this cycle. The amount added is consistent with our contributions.

CO2 produces a greenhouse effect. This is basic physics which has been known since the thirties. This effect explains about a quarter of the heating. When the Earth gets warmer, more moisture is absorbed by the air, again, basic physics. Warmer air can contain more moisture and so absorbs more of it from the oceans. And water vapour is in itself a greenhouse gas. Thankfully this effect is not a run-away effect, but it does amplify the warming caused by the greenhouse gas by about a factor of four. And this roughly explains the heating trend.

Notice how nothing of that had to do with whether the US had a cold winter in 2017, or stuff like that?

I'm not against using the fact that we've had record hot summers in a nearly streak for the past decade as something to wake people up with, because that's extremely unlikely to happen on a random chance if the Earth is indeed not getting warmer.

[tabibito]

Interesting set of graphs available here

[rogue06]

I think both of you fail to realize that the truth of Anthropogentic Global Warming is not based on a couple of weather events.

Agree. But what is frustrating is how many of the same folks who say this in response to record low temperatures will turn around and point to a couple of hot weather events and cite them as evidence for AGW. There is no consistency here.











Smiley squirrel.gif XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HAPPY SQUIRREL APPRECIATION DAY! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Smiley squirrel.gif

[carpedm9587]

Where I live in Britain the weather in December has often been colder, sometimes very much colder.

I cannot speak for Europe as a whole.

The question confuses weather (i.e., "it's cold") with climate (i.e., "global warming") and is being asked by someone dedicated to the propostion that the entire discussion is "heads I win, tails you lose." I sincerely doubt any answer is going to satisfy.

[carpedm9587]

Agree. But what is frustrating is how many of the same folks who say this in response to record low temperatures will turn around and point to a couple of hot weather events and cite them as evidence for AGW. There is no consistency here.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26047[/ATTACH] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HAPPY SQUIRREL APPRECIATION DAY! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [ATTACH=CONFIG]26047[/ATTACH]

I have never seen a bonafide climate scientist point to a single weather event, or even handful of weather events, and claim it is "evidence for global warming." I HAVE seen climatologist address the claims of those who point to a particular weather event (e.g., very cold weather) and claim it disproves global warming by noting that such weather events fit into the global warming model and do not refute it. That they fit into the model and are even predicted by the model does not PROVE global warming.

There is a basic logic flaw here. Saying, "X does not disprove Y" is not the same as "X proves Y"

This is logic 101.

[Leonhard]

Agree. But what is frustrating is how many of the same folks who say this in response to record low temperatures will turn around and point to a couple of hot weather events and cite them as evidence for AGW. There is no consistency here.

I'd certainly be all for better consistency. But who specifically are you talking about here? The International Climate Panel? They've come out with some fairly conservative estimates, and were clear to state when a possible outcome was only potential and not certain given what we know. Dr. Michael Mann? He's written an article of how a colder winter in the US doesn't disprove Global Warming. He's also, like the IPCC, written warnings about how climate change can impact weather.

Nothing in that seems wrong.

I'm not against using recent floods to highlight the problem of Global Warming. With future higher sea levels we can expect floodings in various places to get worse, and it is not unreasonable to say that Miami is going to be permanently flooded in this century. And the string of record hot summers does have an explanation outside of random statistical fluctuation.

[rogue06]

I have never seen a bonafide climate scientist point to a single weather event, or even handful of weather events, and claim it is "evidence for global warming." I HAVE seen climatologist address the claims of those who point to a particular weather event (e.g., very cold weather) and claim it disproves global warming by noting that such weather events fit into the global warming model and do not refute it. That they fit into the model and are even predicted by the model does not PROVE global warming.

There is a basic logic flaw here. Saying, "X does not disprove Y" is not the same as "X proves Y"

This is logic 101.

I don't remember his name but CNN regularly brings him on as an expert (he is a climatologist) do this and then there is of course Al Gore. If the climatologists want to get more people to accept AGW they need to take Gore off to the side and tell him to shut up and go back to his massive compound that uses up enough energy to power a small town and stay there.













Smiley squirrel.gif XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HAPPY SQUIRREL APPRECIATION DAY! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Smiley squirrel.gif

[JonathanL]

Extremely mild winters here for the past many years. Saw almost no snow this year. Same as last year.

I remember three feets of snow in 1993.

Used to have plenty of snow here in Finland by November-December, now winter doesn't really begin until January-February.

Not that I'm complaining, I hate snow.

[carpedm9587]

I don't remember his name but CNN regularly brings him on as an expert (he is a climatologist) do this and then there is of course Al Gore. If the climatologists want to get more people to accept AGW they need to take Gore off to the side and tell him to shut up and go back to his massive compound that uses up enough energy to power a small town and stay there.

AFAIK, climatologists do not control Gore. Gore is his own person and doing his own thing. The "massive compound" is a fairly gross exaggeration that ignores a number of factors (e.g., the building triples as a home and two offices, his energy bill includes a significant uptick because he buys green energy, etc.). I dug into the claims being made when this first came up and found, once again, that this is yet another right-wing meme. I have to admit, they are getting pretty old. I don't know why climate deniers waste their time with such pointless and easily refutable arguments. Just say, "I don't want to believe in global warming and the facts don't matter to me," and be done with it.

[Juvenal]

I don't remember his name but CNN regularly brings him on as an expert (he is a climatologist) do this and then there is of course Al Gore. If the climatologists want to get more people to accept AGW they need to take Gore off to the side and tell him to shut up and go back to his massive compound that uses up enough energy to power a small town and stay there.

The Gore thing was debunked long ago. He was paying for carbon offsets, and some geek decided to figure out how much energy that translated to at normal rates, and hand off that calculation to the "read it, believe it" crowd.

You know the type. They watch CNN.

[rogue06]

AFAIK, climatologists do not control Gore. Gore is his own person and doing his own thing. The "massive compound" is a fairly gross exaggeration that ignores a number of factors (e.g., the building triples as a home and two offices, his energy bill includes a significant uptick because he buys green energy, etc.). I dug into the claims being made when this first came up and found, once again, that this is yet another right-wing meme. I have to admit, they are getting pretty old. I don't know why climate deniers waste their time with such pointless and easily refutable arguments. Just say, "I don't want to believe in global warming and the facts don't matter to me," and be done with it.

Back in 2006 it was disclosed through an examination of public records that Gore's home and office racked up $30,000-a-year in utility bills devouring roughly 221,000 kilowatt hours -- or more than 20 times what the average 4 bedroom house in the same area uses (so yeah the "small town" reference was hyperbole). And FWIU using green energy sources doesn't cause you to consume more energy or cause a "significant uptick" so I'm not sure what you're getting at there^[1].

And it wasn't just the "right wing" complaining about Gore's energy consumption habits (which IIRC included using a jet to fly to a location that was only a 2 hour drive away). I think it was senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Eric Alterman who revealed that Gore was keeping his pool so warm that it actually consumed more energy than his 20-room house (not including 8 bathrooms).

At the time a spokesperson for Gore claimed the high consumption was due to the fact that he had bought an older home and was in the process of upgrading it but a check in 2016 found that he was consuming even more energy -- 230,889 kilowatt hours. And his pool was still using more electricity in 2 months than what the average American home did in an entire year, averaging 5513 kilowatt hours per month. That's more than 6 times what the average American uses for their entire home.

Gore is yet another "do as I say not as I do" hypocrite^[2] unlike Ed Begley Jr. who actually practices what he preaches (who lives in a LEED-platinum certified house, the highest environmental rating from the U.S. Green Building Council, which is solar-powered, has composting toilets and a huge rainwater tank for his fruit and vegetable garden. He's also driven electric cars exclusively since the early 70s).








1. If you want an example of a former top politician's home being environmental friendly that would be George W Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas which the Chicago Tribune described as being "a model of environmental rectitude" with geothermal heat pumps circulating water at a constant 67 degree temperature which heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer thereby using about a quarter of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize. It also filtered wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets and mixed it with collected rainwater for irrigation

2. Back during the energy crisis of the 1970s Richard Nixon asked Americans to forgo using Christmas lights to decorate their houses in order to conserve energy -- all the while having the air conditioners in the White House going so he could enjoy a continuous fire going in the fireplace.



Smiley squirrel.gif XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HAPPY SQUIRREL APPRECIATION DAY! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Smiley squirrel.gif

[Juvenal]

Back during the energy crisis of the 1970s Richard Nixon asked Americans to forgo using Christmas lights to decorate their houses in order to conserve energy -- all the while having the air conditioners in the White House going so he could enjoy a continuous fire going in the fireplace.

The math works.

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]HAPPY SQUIRREL APPRECIATION DAY![/FONT]

[carpedm9587]

Back in 2006 it was disclosed through an examination of public records that Gore's home and office racked up $30,000-a-year in utility bills devouring roughly 221,000 kilowatt hours -- or more than 20 times what the average 4 bedroom house in the same area uses (so yeah the "small town" reference was hyperbole). And FWIU using green energy sources doesn't cause you to consume more energy or cause a "significant uptick" so I'm not sure what you're getting at there^[1].

And it wasn't just the "right wing" complaining about Gore's energy consumption habits (which IIRC included using a jet to fly to a location that was only a 2 hour drive away). I think it was senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Eric Alterman who revealed that Gore was keeping his pool so warm that it actually consumed more energy than his 20-room house (not including 8 bathrooms).

At the time a spokesperson for Gore claimed the high consumption was due to the fact that he had bought an older home and was in the process of upgrading it but a check in 2016 found that he was consuming even more energy -- 230,889 kilowatt hours. And his pool was still using more electricity in 2 months than what the average American home did in an entire year, averaging 5513 kilowatt hours per month. That's more than 6 times what the average American uses for their entire home.

Gore is yet another "do as I say not as I do" hypocrite^[2] unlike Ed Begley Jr. who actually practices what he preaches (who lives in a LEED-platinum certified house, the highest environmental rating from the U.S. Green Building Council, which is solar-powered, has composting toilets and a huge rainwater tank for his fruit and vegetable garden. He's also driven electric cars exclusively since the early 70s).








1. If you want an example of a former top politician's home being environmental friendly that would be George W Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas which the Chicago Tribune described as being "a model of environmental rectitude" with geothermal heat pumps circulating water at a constant 67 degree temperature which heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer thereby using about a quarter of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize. It also filtered wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets and mixed it with collected rainwater for irrigation

2. Back during the energy crisis of the 1970s Richard Nixon asked Americans to forgo using Christmas lights to decorate their houses in order to conserve energy -- all the while having the air conditioners in the White House going so he could enjoy a continuous fire going in the fireplace.

Actually, this happened twice, each time right after the release of his movies. The 2006 version cited all of the "hyporcrite" affirming stats, and ignored anything that spoke differently (e.g., it made no reference to the fact that the home was not a "normal" home because it also housed two businesses, that his energy bill was significantly higher because he paid a premium to buy green energy, it completely ignored construction that was underway to change the carbon footprint of the structure, etc.). There is no doubt that he is consuming more energy than most. The issue is what is the energy source, what is the corresponding carbon footprint, and what is it being used for. All of this was ignored by the two "studies."

I'm not defending Gore. He exaggerates, and it harms the overall argument. He uses fear as a primary vehicle, and I don't think that's a wise approach. He is also a polarizing figure due to his relationship with the Clinton's, so he should know that he is going to automatically push climate deniers more deeply into their denial. Fortunately, the vast majority of the planet is a bit more reasonable, and willing to look at the evidence, so there is progress being made. It is being slowed by the deniers - of that there is no doubt - and now that we have one of the biggest deniers controlling the white house and another controlling the EPA, the impact is even greater. Hopefully, that will be corrected in 2020.