Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[demi-conservative]

Everyone needs to refer to and understand academic sources

Let me know when you pay 40 bucks per article per person for 7 billion people on earth to get past paywall!!!

[seer]

Your whipping a dead horse. As I said tropical storm data is NOT at present a major indicator of climate change. The sources I will cite will go into this. The elephant in the room is you cited a very short term old study on a hurricane 'drought' that did not mention climate change. What's up with citing this not relevant source?

No idiot, I only quoted that because of what JimL claimed (that this last active hurricane season was caused by AGW), then I referenced it again with Len. The fact is you can not average hurricanes,we have no idea what an average hurricane season should look like since we do not have decent enough records going back long enough.

[Cow Poke]

Let me type really really slowly . . .

Everyone needs to refer to and understand academic sources and not the yellow journalism from the extreme views from AL Gore to Breitbart nonacademic sources.

When you have an opportunity to pop your head out of your backside and actually read what I wrote....

[carpedm9587]

It is freaking cold, I can't remember it being this cold in December for this long since the sixties, with no end in sight. Europe is experiencing the same. How does this square with Global warming...

I am responding to the OP and have not read the entire thread yet. You appear, however, to be confusing "weather" with "climate." Specific events in time are "weather." Overall trends and patterns are "climate." YOu also appear tobe confusing "local" with "global." Two years ago, we had a record breaking year for average high temperatures around the world. A map came out that showed the average annual temperature throughout the world. It was yellow-orange-red virtually everywhere, indicating areas that were above average. There was ONE place on the entire planet that was very blue (below average): the northeast of the U.S. Boston got buried in snow, and we had record-setting cold temperatures. Climate-change deniers in New England were asking the same question - if global warming is true, why is it so cold?

Climate models actually predict these kinds of fluctations, with or without warming. Different places see different extremes at different times - including large areas. The overall average temperature of the planet has been, however, climbing at an unpresedented rate. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are climbing at unprecedented levels. There are clear indicators that we are in an overall global warming trend, with all of the inherent consequences of that reality.

Denying it seems to me, folly. Nature doesn't care. If we do not take steps to try to counter our part of the contribution to the effect, nature will do what nature does, and we'll just have to deal with the outcomes. Unfortunately, the outcomes are fairly distant (latter half of this century) and we humans are not reknown for our long-term visions. So if distant consequences compromise short-term prosperity, we are very good at sticking our heads in the sand and just continuing on our merry way, confident we will "deal with it" when/if it becomes an actual problem. That tendency may well bite us on this one.

[carpedm9587]

Can you show us one time it was predicted that global warming would lead to record cold temperatures?

Locally record cold temperatures, not globally. This article from Forbes provides a global map with average record highs in red-yellows and record lows in blues. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshal.../#18a5ed5e5680). Tghis year has a larger blue segment then the past couple years - but all of the past 10 year maps of this time show record highs dominating over record lows globally - hence the term "global" warming.

[seer]

I am responding to the OP and have not read the entire thread yet. You appear, however, to be confusing "weather" with "climate." Specific events in time are "weather." Overall trends and patterns are "climate." YOu also appear tobe confusing "local" with "global." Two years ago, we had a record breaking year for average high temperatures around the world. A map came out that showed the average annual temperature throughout the world. It was yellow-orange-red virtually everywhere, indicating areas that were above average. There was ONE place on the entire planet that was very blue (below average): the northeast of the U.S. Boston got buried in snow, and we had record-setting cold temperatures. Climate-change deniers in New England were asking the same question - if global warming is true, why is it so cold?

Climate models actually predict these kinds of fluctations, with or without warming. Different places see different extremes at different times - including large areas. The overall average temperature of the planet has been, however, climbing at an unpresedented rate. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are climbing at unprecedented levels. There are clear indicators that we are in an overall global warming trend, with all of the inherent consequences of that reality.

Denying it seems to me, folly. Nature doesn't care. If we do not take steps to try to counter our part of the contribution to the effect, nature will do what nature does, and we'll just have to deal with the outcomes. Unfortunately, the outcomes are fairly distant (latter half of this century) and we humans are not reknown for our long-term visions. So if distant consequences compromise short-term prosperity, we are very good at sticking our heads in the sand and just continuing on our merry way, confident we will "deal with it" when/if it becomes an actual problem. That tendency may well bite us on this one.

You are assuming two things Carp, one that there is an average for the earth's temperature, and two that a generally warmer earth will over all be worse than a colder earth. And finally, the alarmists had no problem pointing to this last active hurricane season as evidence for AGW. They use weather events when it suits them.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... every party needs a pooper, that's why we invited you!


[ATTACH=CONFIG]25717[/ATTACH]

Just so you know: http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/s...oming-ice-age/

The "ice age" cover for Time Magazine is a fake cover that has been circulating online for some time.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, it makes total sense that an average increase in global temperature would cause record extreme bitter cold.

Actually - it does. Because the average overall temperature is rising does not mean that we still do not have deeply cold places at the poles. When the temperature overall shows a pattern of change, it alters the way the jet stream flows. That stream tends to oscillate more - consistent with the "weather extremes" model. That means it woobles more north-to-south, and it drives deeper to the south more often. When that happens, you get the infamous "polar vortex," an area where polar temperatures are drawn further south more (and more often) than they otherwise would be. So you can get incidents of extreme cold in the northern hemisphere in the northern winter months (Dec-Mar), and in the southern hemisphere in the winter months (Jun-Sep).

There is a good summary of this effect here: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/3...boston-us-asia

If that seems too biased a site, I have always found Popular Science to be fairly well edited and supported: https://www.popsci.com/warm-arctic-cold-winter

[carpedm9587]

Except Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.

And anyway, that's all just an attempt to explain away the cold weather after the fact. I want to see a prediction before the fact! Which scientist was predicting that global warming would cause record cold?

Not according to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...-at-both-poles

[tabibito]

Just so you know: http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/s...oming-ice-age/

The "ice age" cover for Time Magazine is a fake cover that has been circulating online for some time.

So - if all those cooling effect aerosols had remained in use, we wouldn't be in this mess?

[carpedm9587]

See Leonard many of us remember the scientific consensus around acid rain, that it was a planetary crisis leading to an uninhabitable earth. Never mind the fact that no one has demonstrated that over all a warmer planet would be worse or less beneficial than a cooler planet.

This appears to be another tactic being used by climate change deniers - but the evidence is not what it appears. Acid rain was real, and environmental controls were implemented, especially into the 1990s, that significantly changed acidification. It appears that this was a success story of what CAN be done when we set out to do it: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-dirty-legacy/

The article is specific to the Appalachian area, so cannot be contrued to be "global," but the sources it cites appear to check out (I spot-checked a few).

[carpedm9587]

First you guys say that weather events do not disprove or prove global warming, now you say they do prove it? And what do you do with the 10 year low in Atlantic hurricanes before this last season? Not to mention that you have no idea what is normal for these events. So does a lull in Atlantic storms also point to global warming?

US in Longest 'Hurricane Drought' in Recorded History


https://www.livescience.com/50704-hu...e-drought.html

You appear to be confusing "hurricanes that impacted the U.S." with "hurricanes that occurred." While there was a drought of the former, there was only a modest dip of the latter. http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm

In fact, in general, the number of hurricanes per season shows a general track of increasing.

[carpedm9587]

I'll tell you why Leonhard, because the old school Communists moved into the green movement, this is very well documented. If you are really interested try Rupert Darwall's latest work; Green Tyranny. It is meticulously foot noted and referenced.

https://www.amazon.com/Green-Tyranny...=green+tyranny

We are not blind, we see what the greens are saying, they are not shy about it: https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/9/23...munist-agenda/

Odd. I cannot find a single critique of Darwall's book. I don;t have a prayer of reading it (with everything I have added to my reading list), but at least a gfew critiques would help to understand the thesis and the outcomes of peer reviews. It does not appear to be reviewed by anyone. Has anyone else found anything?

I ask because I know that anyone can write a book - and even cite extensive sources - and still be simply out to make a buck and not be truly interested in the science. I read one such book a few years ago, and when I spot-checked the references, I discovered some of them didn't even exist. So I have become dubious about "authoritative books" until I can see how it has been critiqued and spot-check some of the references myself.

[Mountain Man]

Locally record cold temperatures, not globally. This article from Forbes provides a global map with average record highs in red-yellows and record lows in blues. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshal.../#18a5ed5e5680). Tghis year has a larger blue segment then the past couple years - but all of the past 10 year maps of this time show record highs dominating over record lows globally - hence the term "global" warming.

There's enough evidence out there telling us that the official "adjusted" data can't be trusted, and the raw numbers always tell a different story. Besides, that article pulls the same "average" bait-and-switch that I warned about earlier.

Anyway, that's now what I was asking: Who predicted that global warming would cause record cold temperatures? Nobody predicted that, because it doesn't make a lick of sense. On the contrary, we were told that cold and snow would be a thing of the past by now. And this isn't just a fluke, either.

Source:

On this date in 1929, most of the US east of the Rockies was over 60 degrees. It was 73 degrees in Sparta, Illinois – 53 degrees warmer than today.

December 30 maximum temperatures have declined in the US over the last 80 years.

2017-12-30074852_shadow.jpg

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/...res-in-the-us/

© Copyright Original Source

[carpedm9587]

You are assuming two things Carp, one that there is an average for the earth's temperature, and two that a generally warmer earth will over all be worse than a colder earth. And finally, the alarmists had no problem pointing to this last active hurricane season as evidence for AGW. They use weather events when it suits them.

Umm... the first seems to me to be obvious. If you take the average temperature per day at specific locations around the planet, you can derive the average daily high at that location. You can then plot that location over time. If you assign a color to those points, and do it for points around the planet consistently, you can then get a trendline for what is happening globally. If more of the spots show an increasing average temperature, then the global trend is to warming. If, over time, more of those spots show a decreasing temperature, then the trend is to global cooling. If there is a random or flat distribution, then the climate is relatively stable. I'mnot sure why you would have a problem with that, from a mathematical basis.

I actually said nothing about "better" or "worse." When the climate changes, there are corresponding consequences to ecology, geology, and other earth systems. Some of those will be positive (e.g., farming areas extending northwards, longer growing seasons) and others will be negative (e.g., impact of rising seas on coastal cities, weather events with increasing severity, etc.). Others are difficult to predict (e.g., migration of species, extermination of species, etc.).

As for yiour last point, I did not at any point say that the tendency to confuse weather and climate is unique to climate change deniers. I have seen weather incorrectly used to defend "global warming" and it is equally wrong when used in that way. Some people just don't know the difference - and they exist in both camps.