Slashdot Mirror
Extreme Winter Weather In the US Linked To a Warming Arctic (theverge.com)
A new study shows how global climate change can have ripple effects at the local level. According to the research, extreme winter weather is two to four times more likely in the eastern U.S. when the Arctic is unusually warm. The Verge reports: Researchers analyzed a variety of atmospheric data in the Arctic, as well as how severe winter weather was in 12 cities across the U.S. from 1950 to 2016. Since 1990, as the Arctic has been warming up and losing ice, extreme cold snaps and heavy snow in the winter have been two to four times more frequent in the eastern U.S. and the Midwest, while in the western U.S., their frequency has decreased, according to a study published today in Nature Communications. The study, however, only shows there might be a correlation -- not a direct causal link -- between the warming Arctic and severe winters in the U.S. And it doesn't show how exactly the two are connected, so it doesn't really add much to what scientists already knew, according to several experts.
Today's study focuses on the Arctic as the main culprit for the extreme winter weather. Previous research has suggested that the warming Arctic may disrupt the polar vortex, a ring of swirling cold air circling the North Pole. Think of the polar vortex as a river, says study co-author Judah Cohen, a climatologist and director of seasonal forecasting at Atmospheric and Environmental Research. The fast flow of this river locks up the cold air over the Arctic. But as the Arctic warms -- especially in some areas like the Barents-Kara seas north of Europe and Russia -- a boulder springs up in this river, disrupting the polar vortex and allowing the freezing Arctic air to flow south, Cohen says.
Today's study focuses on the Arctic as the main culprit for the extreme winter weather. Previous research has suggested that the warming Arctic may disrupt the polar vortex, a ring of swirling cold air circling the North Pole. Think of the polar vortex as a river, says study co-author Judah Cohen, a climatologist and director of seasonal forecasting at Atmospheric and Environmental Research. The fast flow of this river locks up the cold air over the Arctic. But as the Arctic warms -- especially in some areas like the Barents-Kara seas north of Europe and Russia -- a boulder springs up in this river, disrupting the polar vortex and allowing the freezing Arctic air to flow south, Cohen says.
Climate change doesn't care whether you believe in it or not
I would be curious to know how "extreme" is defined. Granted, I'm in the northeast US so my personal experiences have been limited to that area, but I don't feel like the weather has been extreme at all. Perhaps people may look at the events of the past few weeks and say "OMG, we've gotten several nor'easters in a row...the end of the world is coming." But if you look back over a couple of years, the winters haven't been particularly harsh on average.
I'd be interested in seeing the actual data.
In any event, the article title is very misleading when the source material is actually saying:
"The study, however, only shows there might be a correlation -- not a direct causal link -- between the warming Arctic and severe winters in the U.S. And it doesn't show how exactly the two are connected."
Hard to say if this is the usual tree hugger bias here or just sloppy reporting (or likely both...it is slashdot after all).
They pretty much link anything and everything to Global Warming these days. It's a vivid demonstration of the power of ignorance of statistical analysis and how easy it is to fool people that don't understand that correlation causation. Mark Twain was not kidding when he said there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Here in NJ we had temperature-wise about average January, much warmer than average February and slightly below average March so far.
1 snow fall in January
a few medium snow storms in March
Back in 1996 we had extreme snowstorms
In 2011 lots of snow attributed to La Nina.
Really, this "global " scaremongering is getting tiresome.
I don't respond to or upvote ACs
Wow, really? It's all happening on the same fucking planet. There, I explained it.
#DeleteFacebook
They defined extreme weather under the Accumulated Winter Season Severity Index which looks primarily at rapid changes in temperature and unusually heavy snowfalls. The metric is a standard one you can find more about here http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/research/awssi/indexAwssi.jsp. Note that the AWSSI does not include wind, general precipitation, or most unusually high temperature events.
Creating a hypothesis based on observation (explaining past events) IS science. It's part of the scientific method. A real scientist would take that hypothesis, test it (predictions and further observation), refine the hypothesis further and further. Just because something is difficult to predict doesn't mean you are not doing science.
And people said that showed a contradiction to global warming - they were mocked and pooh-poohed by the political scientists who said that a one month aberration in the season meant nothing.
Then it kept happening so the political scientists said that it's not global warming - it's "climate change" and see we're still right and you're still peons.
So now we have a longer winter with snow fall in march (an aberration and not like that has never happened before - oh wait, it HAS) and that's now hard proof of global warming... er... climate change.
This isn't science. This is BULLSHIT.
Captcha: aromas... yeah... smells like it too...
This isn't a hypothesis - this is proclaimed as further proof to a considered "fact".
If you say "any wild change in the system proves my hypothesis" then the test is meaningless.
This is NOT science.
Tossing 'heads' 3 out of every tries 2 would be correlate nicely with how extreme the press makes this.
(Think a 'Bruce Almighty' finger counting event.)
Historically speaking this seems more like a slight redistribution of outcomes.
More like 'wack-a-mole'.
If the cold doesn't show up in the Arctic Ocean, it might show up somewhere else.
This 'polar vortex' is just the transport mechanism.
The heat balance of the planet is still the same.
"Being able to explain, what already happened does not make you a scientist."
Well, that's cosmologists fucked then. And geologists, anyone who works on evolution, continental drift... Good to know that none of us are scientists.
Creating a hypothesis based on observation (explaining past events) IS science. It's part of the scientific method. A real scientist would take that hypothesis, test it (predictions and further observation), refine the hypothesis further and further. Just because something is difficult to predict doesn't mean you are not doing science.
Calling skeptics "deniers" is most definitely ANTI-science.
Might as well drop the hypocrisy and call them heretics.
Although that's a legitimate point of view in the sense of being internally consistent, it excludes a large number of scientific investigations. According to your definition, neither forensic pathologists nor historians would do science or be scientists. Fair enough, so they are doing science-2 and nothing is lost, because everybody already agrees that primarily historic, explaining disciplines are different from physics and chemistry. Obviously, mathematics is also not science according to your definition. Well, Alfred Nobel thought so, too, but in the end you're just arguing about terminology, which is pointless.
Global warming would also be the cause. This all proves that global climate change is real, ha.
The research which led to predictions of an unstable polar vortex, and the observed weather predictions was done in the past. This is the confirmation. It's very much science.
Being able to explain, what already happened does not make you a scientist.
Are you seriously claiming that paleontology is not a science? You might want to revisit that nice little straw man definition you have there. Just because something happened in the past does not mean it cannot be studied scientifically. Remember that the past is where we get literally ALL of our data for our scientific models.
To qualify, you have to be able to reliably predict, what will happen... And there, despite several decades of trying, the Climate Scientists have been no more successful than the Economists.
You may have meant that as an insult but it isn't. Economics does make testable predictions that routinely turn out to be true. They don't award Nobel Prizes in economics for lucky guesses. Just because a field is complicated and messy doesn't mean that they haven't had any success. I'm guessing you don't actually know any climate scientists nor are you actually familiar with any of their work that you so glibly disparage.
1. They can explain the lag of about 40 to 50 years between CO2 concentrations and temperature changes as shown by ice core samples and tree growth rings. From what I've been taught, cause should precede effect. But the data shows that CO2 levels change 40 to 50 years AFTER the global temperature change occurs.
2. The viking farms under the glaciers in Greenland. Seems to me that's pretty strong evidence that it was a lot warmer back then when compared to now.
Exactly. Climate is a zero-sum game. There is a certain amount of radiant energy from the sun that arrives at earth, that amount is constant and readily determined by calculating the flux of energy using the total output and square of distance. This does not change. It can move around the earth and show up here but not there, and then change next month, but the conservation of energy must and does hold true. Perhaps we should call it climate redistribution.
Pretty much all serious attempts at modelling global weather/climate points to one important correlation:
More heat (= more energy) in the atmosphere means that we get more extreme weather.
I think 2017 in particular but most years since 2000 have had a lot more (Carribean/US) hurricanes than what used to be normal.
Here in Norway we have had a bunch of warmer winters but also winters with far more precipitation which (when the weather is still cold enough) gives us more snow. At the main meteorological office here in Oslo the snow cover is within 2cm of the highest ever measured.
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
Any humidity being released in the Arctic and evaporating is being carried along with the associated winds caused by temperature changes and being dropped elsewhere
Quote: "Being able to explain, what already happened does not make you a scientist."
Seriously? What have you smoked?
Geologist, Forensic, etc. ain't scientists... right.
No, not at all.
To qualify, that's not the definition of a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. Not even a little.
So, our company contracts long-term weather forecasts from DTN, which is a company that produces weather outlook for industrial utilities and agriculture in the US and Europe. They use a variety of information to estimate future weather (monthly to decade scale), and in the process, comment on how current year weather matches historical weather. They look at multi-decade trends, and point out how this season is very similar to the 1950s, etc.
The comment in last quarter's winter forecast had to do with the "polar vortex" event that is leading to the "extreme" cold snaps across the US over the last 4 years or so. There are two factors at stake here, one being the "tightness" of the high-altitude wind currents around the arctic, and a secondary "rotation" effect. Imagine that there is an oval above the arctic that oscillates short and wide, mostly centered over the pole. The boundary is like a ripple that we see as wind currents. When it is circular, cold air is trapped up by the pole, and we have mild winters in the northern continents. However, over time, the polar winds oscillate north and south, which leads to daily oscillations in weather over the winter. What we see as large temperature swings are just the wind currents oscillating past.
If the oval becomes elongated, it allows the cold air to be pulled farther south, what we call the "polar vortex" with "abnormally" colder weather than average. Cold air is pulled down from the north, then hot air is pulled up from the south, and the intersection results in more winter storms than average, depending on humidity. But that dip pattern is also not stationary, it rotates on a multi-decade-long scale. In the 1990s, the polar vortex was over Russia / East Asia, and they observed the temperature swings. The North Americans (in our short-sightedness) think that if it didn't happen here, it didn't happen. But now two decades later, the elongation has rotated over us, and suddenly we're all freaking out about catastrophic weather changes.
The forecaster's point was all of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.
And in further news, the sky is blue. Of course climate change is going to cause weather changes. That's commonsense. The debate is what caused the climate change - the natural evolution of the climate (gradual warming as we emerge from the last ice age, which takes thousands of years to occur; the earth was much warmer than it is now, during the dinosaur era before the ice age) or man-made influences? For me, there are merits to both theories, but no definitive evidence to choose one over the other as "the cause". In my opinion, the weather isn't any different than it was during the '80s. If anything, we actually have more frequent drier winters. For example, we only had one major snowstorm last year. This year is more the norm - hence the term "Hardy New Englanders". The excitement comes from weather folks trying to drum up advertising revenue by hyping the storms, and migration of southern folk to the Northeast, for better job opportunities, and they can't handle the weather.
So far
- more extreme weather worldwide [check]
- poles getting warmer, ice sheet melting [check]
- sea water temperature and level increased [check]
- all of these happening too quickly over the past century to be natural [check]
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
You mean like to correlation between cholesterol and heart disease....
Actually they have jackass. When you develop a model, you need to be able to predict current and past events. Then to be useful, you need to be able to predict events that current models do not. You can fuck off and die now...
Paleontology could make a statement to the effect of: "We will find a fossil with such and such features".
I think that nicely shows that you have no idea what paleontologists do or how they do it.
Your argument regarding Economists is an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy
Not at all. Go read their papers because you clearly haven't. I have a graduate degree in finance and I've worked with many of the economic models you question. The models stand on their own and make perfectly valid and provable predictions. No appeal to authority needed. If you want to disprove them go right ahead. There is a Nobel prize waiting for you if you do.
Like that distinguished bunch, Climate Scientists too can explain anything, but are able to predict nothing.
Again you make fairly sweeping claims about a field of study you pretty clearly know nothing about. The climate scientists make predictions routinely and are proven to be accurate within the limitations of the model. If you think otherwise then you haven't actually examined any papers on the subject. Sure there is a lot they still don't know but that's true of every field of science. You also have to understand that it takes years for most predictions of climate models to be proven. But the evidence is there. Your failure to examine it does not make it less valid.
According to NOAA, the average number of Atlantic hurricanes per year in the 1968-2016 era was 6.2. with a standard deviation of 2.9
In the years 2000-2016, there were only 3 years with numbers of cyclones that exceeded the average by 1 sigma.
There were 2 years that had fewer numbers of cyclones (by more than 1 sigma). All the other years were average, within +/- 1 sigma.
See http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
The only reason this comment is insightful is because we now have the insight that OP is not a scientist, nor does he perform science in any capacity.
Well, that's cosmologists fucked then. And geologists, anyone who works on evolution, continental drift... Good to know that none of us are scientists.
That is because they are historians. Historian is a very useful profession, in every scale, but it both cannot be tested under scientific principles and should not be confused with science. The mis-labeling of disciplines of study has done quite a bit to devalue what meaning those terms should have.
Many springs and summers were cold and wet but with great variability between years and groups of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
No, we're scientists, thanks. We are tested by scientific principles, and we make what are in fact "predictions". The problem is that the naive do not know that a prediction is not a temporal ordering but rather the ability to generate a piece of information from within a system that has not been an input for that system. For example, the existence of the CMB is a prediction of cosmology - it's existence was calculated stated it was seen, but after it was produced. As was the relative abundance of light elements in the universe. Temporally, of course, the Helium-Hydrogen ratio was set in place long before even stars formed, but in terms of how we tested our scientific theories, these were not inputs into cosmology, but in fact statements that cosmology made about the universe. Calling us historians and saying that this cannot be tested by scientific principles just betrays your ignorance of what science actually is. Start with Popper and get reading.
...are we going to do about it? I mean what effective thing are we going to do about it? Not a damned thing. We absolutely, positively have to burn fossil fuels or we're going to go back to living in caves... after about 95% of the population eats each other until it is small enough to be supported by farming with animals for power.
Eventually - 50, 100 years, maybe more, we'll have nuclear fusion and or sufficient wind turbines or geothermal or something AND we'll have a really effective battery or supercapacitor that will power everything that internal combustion engines do now all the way up to fighter jets, and then we will have arrived at a solution. And we'll still need oil for petrochemicals for their material value - building things out of plastics, and so forth. But in our lifetimes? Doubtful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NZqNdXNTko
This just points out that we can't really rely on our existing models of global warming and the weather changes it might bring. The entire system is so complex that our current understanding of it is woefully incomplete. We're at the stage where, while we know a lot, there's still too much of 'we don't know what we don't know' for us to make detailed predictions with any confidence.
We need to be putting A LOT more money and effort into understanding and predicting these changes and their associated timeframes. First, we'll need to plan how to protect ourselves. Second, all that data and understanding will increase our chances of finding and evaluating safe ways to slow, and perhaps reverse, AGW.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Does it hurt your head straining the limits of wilful ignorance?
The average temperature of the planet is rising. That's where the term global warming comes from.
If that's too tricky for you I don't really know what to say.
Every bit of that, except the exact nouns, is how the study of history works. Your arrogance betrays your ignorance of other fields. You are either a liar or a historian.
Anthropogenic global warming refers to a single thing: human activities that cause the Earth to warm at a global scale. It is virtually certain that our activities are causing global warming, mostly through emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Climatologists are NOT attempting to walk this back, no matter how much you and others like you might try to spin it that way.
So, why use the term 'climate change' instead? The main reason is that our impacts on climate are actually more complicated and not everything we do has a warming effect. Our activities also tend to release aerosols, or small particulates, into the atmosphere. These aerosols scatter incoming solar radiation and reduce the amount that reaches the surface. The effect of the aerosols, therefore, is to cool the Earth. The amount of aerosols in the atmosphere partially offsets the warming from greenhouse gases, but not completely.
The effects of aerosols are very important and they must be accounted for in climate models to obtain accurate predictions. There are a lot of very well-funded researchers who are studying how to better include the effects of aerosols in climate models. One typical claim from people trying to discredit climatologists is that any research that doesn't support a warming planet is swept under the rug. This shatters that claim, considering the amount of money that's going to study the effects of aerosols and the large number of publications from atmospheric chemists about the topic.
One other reason that 'climate change' is also typically used is that global warming generally refers to the global average temperature rather than the effects on climate in any particular location on the Earth. The warming has been far more severe at high latitudes than at other locations, though the large majority of areas are experiencing warming trends. The warming isn't necessarily spread evenly across seasons, and there's some indication that the warming leads to a slower polar vortex. The high latitudes, especially in the Arctic, aren't as cold, and as a result, there's less of a temperature difference to drive the jet stream. The flow becomes more meridional (wavy) instead of zonal (circumpolar), allowing the not-as-cold air to surge into mid-latitude areas more often than would otherwise happen.
There are also effects beyond temperatures, such as on precipitation, tropical cyclones, and severe storms (tornadoes, hail, straight-line thunderstorm winds), all of which are also important to study. Climate change encompasses these important topics in a way that 'global warming' does not.
If you don't like the term 'climate change', I'm happy to call it anthropogenic global warming. The Earth most certainly has been warming significantly over the past several decades, and human activities are responsible for virtually all of that warming. Another typical attempt to discredit climatologists is to blame the sun for the recent warming. There is some variability in solar output due to the 11 year solar cycle, but the overall trend over the past few decades has been a very slight decrease in solar output, and that certainly doesn't explain the warming that is being observed. Global warming is very real, and humans are responsible for virtually all of the global warming that we've seen over the past few decades.
I'm a meteorologist rather than a climatologist, though the two fields are very much related. I'm happy to use the term 'global warming' to describe the warming of the Earth, of which over the past few decades is almost entirely due to human activities.
Ok, I thought you were confused, now it's obvious you're just a troll. Ah well, that's what I get for engaging.
Science: CO2 absorbs infrared Not Science: because CO2 absorbs infrared, adding it to our atmosphere will increase the temperature of our atmosphere, which will cause more water to evaporate, which will also absorb more infrared, which will further increase the temperature of our atmosphere, creating a runaway greenhouse effect OMG we're going to destroy the planet!
and Siberia gets a bit warmer, Russia will be able to get to all those untapped resources (way more than the US) and the US will lose pretty much its main geographical advantage, the one that is responsible for most of its wealth (a comprehensive river transport system linked to prime agricultural land).
I was reading that the hegemony of the US will probably last another 2-300 years, but climate change is probably the most likely thing to change that.
Warm weather makes cold weather = climate?
After 30 years? Yes, absolutely.
It is obvious these articles usual coincide with some extreme weather event. But in truth weather across the US has been mostly tame the last few years. There is less snow fall for example:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-in...
Weather isn't an indicator of global warming. When people use it it always blows up in their faces and makes people question its existance. Stop doing that! The caps could melt, we could be ten feet under water, but it may be a sunny day.
No, the pro science crowd already has that label. We're the heretics. Your side is the hypocrites.
They defined extreme weather under the Accumulated Winter Season Severity Index which looks primarily at rapid changes in temperature and unusually heavy snowfalls. The metric is a standard one you can find more about here http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/research/awssi/indexAwssi.jsp. Note that the AWSSI does not include wind, general precipitation, or most unusually high temperature events.
Useful info.
If that's the case, then the Northeast is the only place this applies this year. It's been a mild, rather uneventful winter anywhere west of Ohio.
Why didn't you bloody scientists tell us about this??!?!?!?!?
You take the accumulated data and find out the distribution and there will be extremes at the two ends (per dimension) of the distribution of the data. How the fuck else would YOU do it? Or are there no extremist christians, no extremist anarchists and no extremist islamists, etc??? How do you work out an extreme leftist?
Nope, by your "model" the earth would continue to heat up hotter and hotter until it reached the ignition point of the materials of the planet and become a fusion plant. Heat has to leave the system. Your model refuses to add that in.
Really clueless, that.
Thank you for the post!
It's been a long time since I've seen a Slashdot post that was informative and not critically partisan.
Whether your conclusion is right or wrong makes no difference - that can be discussed. It was a great post.
The ice cores don't have the resolution to show a 40-50 year lag. You have two deniertrollidiot mantras mixed up: ice core lags of 800 years and solar irradiance lags (that don't exist for half the satellite record that deniers cite to "prove" the lag exists').
The viking farms were not under ice.
So both things don't exist. Why should the nonexistent be explained?
I should have added that none of the above applies to Climate Science, since of it does make predictions, just like metereologists do for weather instead of climate. In that sense my reply was a bit pointless.
I've read the US fall is within the next 7 years. It's really a matter of how you measure the tipping point. Rome took 300 years to fall but one could pick more debatable positions that push that number down. Democracies die with a wimper and they ALWAYS die. natural cycle of life; cling too hard to prevent death and you end up in a downward spiral of denial into hell.
The UK's empire fell not that long ago and now they are still a serious player with an attitude of a star quarterback but they are not any more significant than the other players no matter how much they suck up to the current (falling) star. Cognitive dissonance keeps the people on the inside blind to what outsiders see far easier.
Resources didn't put the USA in the position it has had over the last century; they sure helped but plenty of places had similar conditions. Winning WW1 and WW2 without being damaged is a HUGE factor; oddly, forgotten when this topic comes up. It takes many decades to rebuild after that kind of devastation. Furthermore, the exploitation of others by the west including purposely keeping them down to avoid serious competition has not been working on China or Russia as well as it has on much of the rest the planet. Not that it's entirely their fault for not lucking out as we did -- but the USA wouldn't have done so well if there was more foreign meddling as is commonly done today-- think of the Civil War and then think about Syria.
Climate change adds another factor which impacts everybody randomly. One can only hope it punishes the right peoples more than the innocent... but it won't. there is no just god; at least in this plain of existence. if you think otherwise, you are not ready to contemplate reality.
I've noticed even in my remote city that climate change is hitting us hard. In the last few years, we've seen a massive increase in sever downpours that I'm sure didn't happen in my youth. It's caused almost a million dollar deficit in the city funds because of all the upgrades they've had to make to handle these new storms so I definitely notice a change.
And to be honest it's not that hard to battle climate change, even small efforts help a lot. I've switched all my lights to high quality LEDs for example, it's lowered my power bill, bulbs never burn out. I couldn't afford a pure electric car and they don't work too well in my cold climate so I ended up getting a Volt and it works. It runs gas free through the entire summer almost. But the key is folks need to try. Too many folks seem to think they can't change and sadly many of these efforts end up saving time and money as well.
You left out solar. Way more powerful than wind or anything else except nuclear. Oil and coal are chemically stored solar. It is true that massive power is spread out over the whole daytime surface of earth... but space has a lot more if you can transmit it (remember intensity is higher; and duh... space.) Furthermore, we do not utilize most solar spectrum with today's PV.
Every 1 calorie of food we eat takes 10 calories of fossil fuels... and I never found a good estimate on calories of solar... but it must take a massive amount of calories to grow a plant... and keep everything from absolute zero! The atmosphere is our daily thermal battery.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"If it is cold anywhere, that disproves Global Warming!"
See, it's warm in the Arctic. Therefore AGW is Fake News. Now watch them eat paste in the back of the classroom.
NO, not quite.
The planet heat balance is what comes in versus what goes out, versus what stays.
In is the sun and a wee bit of nuclear power.
Out is radiation, which Co2 affects a bit, making all teh green house gas news.
Stays is current heat (mostly ice and ocean temps?) and stored or released chemical energy (mostly plants storing and fire and biology releasing?).
The point was that these weather changes don't say there is much change in the overall balance, just that it mostly is moving around.
I'm not sure if that is comforting or not.
Along with a little bit of heat balance change, we are seeing a fair swing in heat distribution.
The question is over what time scale is it a big swing?
A previous poster said this looks like the 1950's.
If so, that would be a lot different than it looks a lot like the last ice age.
N bm MNM MN mmb my 7m8 mimmjmmmmmmmmmkmmi
[ sarcasm ] Yay, this means there'll be more opportunities for entrepreneurial spirited Americans to invest in creating economic activity in:
[ / sarcasm ]
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Science: CO2 absorbs infrared Not Science: because CO2 absorbs infrared, adding it to our atmosphere will increase the temperature of our atmosphere,
But that is exactly what has been shown to be happening.
Because some bastard has move the Jetstream out of our path, we in the UK have had heavy snow (compared to our normal "virtually no snow in winter" and not to US or Canada levels) in the past few weeks and apparently due some more soon.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Here in NJ we had temperature-wise....
We don't care. It's a small data point in a MUCH larger problem.
Back in 1996 we had extreme snowstorms
So what? Weather != Climate. The point is that "extreme" events become MORE COMMON, not that they didn't happen before. The point is that the the average is moving.
Really, this "global " scaremongering is getting tiresome.
Right because New Jersey = all of Earth. (Insert eyeroll here)
I like how you use "Weather != Climate" and then immediately state that weather is climate because "extreme" events are more common. I particularly like it because "extreme" events are not more common, the poster you're replying to pointed this out, and the story itself is a classic example of the "weather = climate (when it suits us)" argument from climatards like yourself.
They can't even get today's weather right. How can they say predict the future? It is going to snow tomorrow. The next day high's in the low 50's or It going to be a nice day tomorrow. When you look out the window it a light rain.
Hasn't the world been changing long before we started recording weather? It was a hot ball of then the ice age. In the 80's we are heading for an ice age. lol.
We are surrounded by the fallout from chemtrails, and yet no mention that they may be used to create warming in Antarctica to uncover the technology and antiquities buried beneath the ice. We pay taxes on carbon credits, or some form of this scheme, and "they" use our tax money to warm the planet to uncover technology. Smart.
The hypothesis proposed by you and yours is that CO2 is the primary driver of the climate and of climate change. So a good check would be to monitor the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and see if there is any correlation. However, there is no correlation, long term, between CO2 and temperature. The start of the current panic occurred when a warming trend was supposed to happen. The on-going pause is the build up to a cooling trend. When that happens you and yours will have to come up with a new excuse and technique to hide the decline.
Repeat after me... 'The effects of CO2 are logarithmic. The effects of CO2 will not stop an Ice Age.' It's all in the science, you just have to look. Or you can short beach front property if you really think the climate is going to hit a tipping point.
Click. Bait.
NOAA has been changing the numbers to fit the narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzGPq9LSjEw
Drummed up by globalist to get to the "one world order" nonsense. The SUN is in a QUIET period. Lack of sunspots, lack of disturbances in the corona, lack of coronal mass ejections, lowering of the sun output, has a DIRECT impact on our little rock. When we have little electromagnetic disruptions to our sphere, the weather patterns change. Couple that with the movement of the magnetic pole and you get problems of "climate change". Well of course our climate changes...but man doesn't have the impact you think it does. But, considering the LACK OF education, and the PROMOTED indoctrination of the youth today, it surprised me not, that a of of the hipster types believe this garbage.
This is the contorted, tortured logic by desperate believers of the Church of Global Warming to explain away record cold temperatures and winters which contradict their global warming religion. That is, when its cold, its global warming, when its warm, its global warming. NEARLY EVERY kind of weather on the planet is one way or another now global warming, as well as EVERY social, economic problem! They can come up with a computer model and clever manipulation and disortion of data to blame nearly ANYTHING on global warming. If you question the Church of Global Warming, you are declared a heretic and it is now getting to the point that such people are nearly to the point of being publicly hanged. Obviously, the Church of Global Warming does not like its dogma being challenged and the difficult questions to be asked. Everyone just has to accept it, or else.
You're getting there!
Now factor in the demonstrable energy increase from having more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and notice how there atmosphere is more energetic with each passing year. You have successfully proven climate change.
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
There are many factors .
earths orbit can vary by 10m kilometers.
Sun activity TSI
Sun/Earth magnetic fields
Cosmic ray - cloud nucleation
Extra volcanos spewing out more stuff, hard to measure, even faults leak c02
China/India burning everything - yeah your fault, 3 billion fuckers - stop fucking and making kids.
Africa - dumb fucks fucking making more kids for profit - trigger a big volcano please.
Stop eating so many fish, and beef you fat burger eaters.
Stop cutting down the forrests in SA, dont by their beef and wood
Asia - stop cutting forrests down for mining, dumb shits.
At least drug lords are growing cannabis, and cocaine
Even if 90% of americans died tommorrow, it would make no difference.
China and India are the main increasing polluters.
USA decreasing c02 by 2% per year is out done by Chinas 4% increase per year, how can they not make more c02, if they
want their GDP growing by 6.5% yearly. (numbers are estimates to prove ratios, not exact figures)
http://astronomer.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Sunspot-Cycle.png
http://www.ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/large/11_year_cycles.jpg
Climate scientists still think the sun is static, they are not Star experts are they.
That's exactly NOT what has been shown to be happening. There is no positive feedback loop with water. In fact, the exact OPPOSITE happens. Thunderstorms form when a surface temperature threshold is passed. They move MASSIVE amounts of heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere, where there is NO CO2. That heat is then radiated out into space. Thunderstorms are like an air conditioner unit for our atmosphere, keeping heat from building up past a specific threshold. There is no runaway warming.
Source: https://science.howstuffworks....
Calling deniers deniers is not anti-science. Deniers calling themselves skeptics are anti-science. It's pretty easy to tell the difference: deniers will adopt any conceivable idea as an explanation as to why global warming isn't happening, because it would violate a quasi-religious belief. If someone tells you they don't think it's happening, but haven't really looked at it, that's a skeptic. If someone tells you that worldwide science is a political conspiracy related to things primarily in the US, and that the scientists are frauds, that's a denier.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If there's no runaway warming, why are we seeing it?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Being something of a science buff and something of a history buff, you're wrong. That's not how history works, although scientific reasoning is useful at times. I have no idea what fields you're not ignorant in.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Weather isn't climate. Climate is something like the integral of weather. Individual extreme events are weather. How often they happen over the years is climate. Similarly, the temperature outside the window right now is weather. What temperature range we tend to get in mid-March here is local climate.
The poster you refer to talked about what happened in his little area of the globe. By his reasoning, rains of fire and brimstone and snakes wouldn't be an extreme event, as long as it was outside New Jersey.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
According to NOAA, the average number of Atlantic hurricanes per year in the 1968-2016 era was 6.2. with a standard deviation of 2.9
In the years 2000-2016, there were only 3 years with numbers of cyclones that exceeded the average by 1 sigma.
There were 2 years that had fewer numbers of cyclones (by more than 1 sigma). All the other years were average, within +/- 1 sigma.
See http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
The real problem is that the GPP said "I think 2017 in particular but most years since 2000 have had a lot more (Carribean/US) hurricanes than what used to be normal" and gets modded to +4, while your factual and referenced post is currently at +1.
Think about that. False rumors / assumptions get repeated so much they take on the level of sage wisdom. Actual facts that don't fit the narrative get ignored. I dislike alarmists for several reasons, (think "chicken little" or "the boy who cried wolf" not anything personal), but it's mostly the religious zeal with which they attack anybody not on "their team". There can be no rational discussion with alarmists.
I live in hurricane alley and know from experience that we've had maybe 2 actual bad years in the past 15, and that most years were in fact milder than normal. Telling the world that "most years since 2000 have had a lot more" is simply making anything he says (and by association, all alarmists that make similar claims) less credible.