Slashdot Mirror
This Was America's Warmest Winter On Record (slate.com)
hondo77 writes: On Tuesday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its official assessment of December, January, and February's temperatures across the United States, and the results are striking: Not a single state in the U.S. had a cooler than average winter. (NOAA treats Alaska and Hawaii separately, due to shorter weather data records there -- though both states were significantly warmer than normal this winter. Weather records for the contiguous United States go back to 1895.) NOAA blames the recent warm weather on a record-strength El Nino "and other climate patterns," most notably, global warming. As a whole, this winter in the lower 48 was about 4.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average: a sharp contrast to the previous back-to-back frigid polar vortex winters, especially in the Northeast.
Write your congress critter and tell him we want more mild winters.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Global warming proven to be a lie!
Now, if you want to reduce CO2 emissions at the same time, feel free. I just don't want to be sent back to the 18th Century...
nothing screams 18th century like nuclear and solar power
You should be aware that even in global warming scenarios where the planet on average is several degrees warmer it'll still get cold enough for snow to fall out of the sky in most places where snow has historically been common. What you'll have a slight tendency to have less snow in many places due to temperature that's offset by a lot more water going into the atmosphere. Many places may see lots more snow.
In many high temperate regions you'll also see more frequent cold snaps. Global warming doesn't mean the climate gets warmer every day of every year; it means there are more total joules of thermal energy in the atmosphere. Since we're talking about a giant rotating ball of fluid which is exchanging heat with the surface and space what you get is much more complicated stuff happening.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Speaking as someone who's live in New England for almost 60 years now, for most of my life there was one regular pattern you could count on each winter: bitter, very dry cold would settle in in late December, followed by a slight rise in temperature in early February that would bring the first real snow of the season. The snow would get heavier and wetter as winter drew to a close.
You need two things for snow: sub-freezing temperatures AND water in the air. The 5F - 20F temperatures we had in January were plenty cold enough for snow, but the air was bone dry. The January skies were a deep, startling blue, often without a single wisp of cloud to be seen. The lack of water was also a contributor to the cold. Days with snow are almost always warmer because the clouds trap heat that would radiate into space. It's desert nights out west where the temperatures plunge fifty degrees after sundown.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That paper deals only with temperatures between 1958 and 1977, specifically a brief dip in 1960-1965 (and caused primarily by the Mount Agung volcanic eruption). Holding that up as "contradicting" the 150 year trend of global warming is ludicrous, and a prime example of cherry-picking.
Also describing it as a "global cooling scare" is far overstating the case. The paper merely notes the cooling of the time as a datapoint of interest. Perhaps you're confusing it with sensationalist media reports?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
The Polar Vortex was a local phenomenon, and while the Lower 48 was freezing its nuts off, Alaska was 18 degrees C warmer than usual.
You're confusing local weather events with the global temperature record. I wouldn't go yelling about bad science if I were you...
Except for the small fact that so far their models have proven to be very very wrong.
A broad, vague statement that demands a citation before it can even be discussed.
Until they can show any form of prediction, iterative models are garbage.
The process of scientific investigation includes making predictions (right or wrong) and then learning from them. Wrong answers are not "garbage" -- they're a baseline that allows scientists to plot the course towards more correct ones. And iteration is the process that improves them. If you oppose iteration, then it's clear you have an anti-science agenda.
And no, iterative models cannot be wrong in the 5 year timeframe, but right in the longer term (except by sheer chance), because errors are cumulative.
*FACEPALM*
There are many models of many things that cannot make accurate short-term predictions, but become more accurate in the longer-term. Oh, look!
All pretty much scientific method 101 here kids.
I'm doubting you ever took any science courses beyond high school.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Translation: "I don't understand science. I don't want to understand science. I assume all scientists are corrupt, because they are saying things I don't like to hear, even though their methods have increased my life expectancy massively, and provided me this computer which I use to loudly proclaim how wrong they are."