World warming unhindered by cold spells: scientists

[Elmore Furth]

Source: Reuters

"January, according to satellite (data), was the hottest January we've ever seen," said Nicholls of Monash University's School of Geography and Environmental Science in Melbourne.

"Last November was the hottest November we've ever seen, November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen," he said of the satellite data record since 1979.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said in December that 2000-2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850, and that 2009 would likely be the fifth warmest year on record. WMO data show that eight out of the 10 hottest years on record have all been since 2000.

Britain's official forecaster, the UK Met Office, said severe winter freezes like the one this year, one of the coldest winters in the country for nearly 30 years, could become increasingly rare because of the overall warming trend.

Scientists say global warming is not uniform in all areas and that climate models predict there will likely be greater extremes of cold and heat, floods and droughts.

"Global warming is a trend superimposed upon natural variability, variability that still exists despite global warming," said Kevin Walsh, associate professor of meteorology at the University of Melbourne.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61O16A20100225

---

Sorry, climate change deniers. Fox News is wrong. The global climate is warming.

Fox News is unfair, unbalanced and a wholly owned sibsidiary of the Republican/Corporate Party.

[xchrom]

1. Another 'Duh moment' that will fail to sink in. Nt

[fascisthunter]

25. Sad but so true

[warm regards]

71. You don't have to be that good of a shot to shoot yourself in the foot.

[laconicsax]

2. Yeah? If Global Warming is real...

How come water turns to ice in my freezer, huh? Explain that one!

[steven johnson]

3. Damned inconvenient, if you ask me

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imnKOgnito]

5. But, but, but...

there was snow!!! In WINTER!!! In places that typically get snow in winter! These facts just can't be discounted and brushed aside with some new age sciencey stuff.

[Lisburn]

70. LOL

Don't talk to me about global warming when I've just come in from shoveling.....shoveling.....shoveling.
I need a bailout to buy a snow blower !!!!!!!!!!

[imnKOgnito]

75. Wow... talk about stepping up to demonstrate my point

Thanks.

[Hissyspit]

6. Kicking since there are apparently DUers who haven't learned this, amazingly enough.

[zeemike]

7. I'll kick it too....but some will never learn.

because they don't want to.

[NecklyTyler]

8. K&R

This information needs to be spread far and wide

[elocs]

9. "Global warming is a trend superimposed upon natural variability,

variability that still exists despite global warming".

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Global warming is climate change except that it is not getting warmer on each and every point of the Earth, that there are natural variations despite overall global warming. "Climate change" simply might have been a better term for the process because the small minds of the deniers still cannot get their minds around the concept that global warming does not mean that the entire globe warms at the same time.

During winter here in Wisconsin it gets cold and snows. That is climate or what normally occurs in this geographical region at this time of the year over the course of many years.

During winter if it snows in Florida for a day or two or freezes, then that is weather, a short-term meteorological event that is not normal and only happens occasionally. However, if it snows a lot in winter in Florida and the temperature changes to freezing more and this happens year after year, then that would become the climate of Florida.

The University of Wisconsin has predicted that here in WI in 50 years our winters would become more like those of southern Iowa and that in 100 years they would be more like those of Arkansas. This was studied because global warming will impact what native plants and tree and crops would continue to grow in this area. The corn belt moving to the north and west was another prediction that would accompany global warming.

[DatManFromNawlins]

10. Meh

'Climate change' is what was exchanged for 'global warming' when scientists and green energy moguls realized that their doomsday scenario wasn't going the way they planned. People rarely scrap a term that has real value.

[elocs]

11. No, I think it is more likely you fit exactly into the denier group I described. n/t

[Hissyspit]

12. Nonsense.

As I explained above to the other person who deliberately or not does not know what they are talking aobut, they are NON-equivalent terms with a relationship, and when they are used stand-alone, they cause confusion about what we are talking about.

How we talk about it has little to do with what is happening.

Read and learn:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175211/tomgram%3A_bill_mckibben%2C_climate_change%27s_o.j._simpson_moment/#more

[Chemisse]

14. I thought they switched to 'climate change'

Instead of global warming, so those who get baffled when there is snow outside will still comprehend that there is global change happening.

[smoogatz]

15. Think of it this way:

Climate change is one of several phenomena associated with and/or triggered by global warming. Uninformed people tend to use the terms interchangeably, which may lead to confusion among other uninformed people. Climate change may initially be subtle in some places and much more extreme in others, particularly the poles and equatorial regions, low-lying coastal regions, and those regions with climates regulated by oceanic currents. In the simplest possible terms, global warming makes the weather do weird shit; the warmer the planet gets, the weirder the weather's going to be: bigger droughts, bigger floods, bigger storms, bizarre and abrupt local and regional climate effects/change. It's not that complicated, but people who watch Fox News will never get it, because Fox News makes you stupid.

[Chemisse]

16. Please don't be patronizing

New federal climate change agency forming
February 8, 2010 | 9:28 am

The Obama administration is proposing a new agency to study and report on the changing climate.

Also known as global warming, climate change has drawn widespread concern in recent years as temperatures around the world rise, threatening to harm crops, spread disease, increase sea levels, change storm and drought patterns and cause polar melting.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010/02/new-federal-climate-change-agency-forming.html

So 'climate change' is not some right-wing euphemism. As I said previously, it is a more neutral term. Since the only climate change we are experiencing in this millennium is global warming, we are free to use the terms interchangeably.

[smoogatz]

18. The LA Times has it partially right.

But not entirely. The terms are related but not interchangeable, though people often use them as though they're entirely synonymous. Global warming is the macro trend that's driving climate change. Rising global temperatures can cause it to snow in Houston, but the term "global warming" isn't really descriptive of that local weather phenomenon, despite the fact that global warming ultimately caused it. But hey, you call it whatever you want.

[Chemisse]

21. I personally prefer global warming (the term, not the phenomenon)

But if they want to go with the neutered term 'climate change' that is ok with me.

[teknomanzer]

46. Repeat after me...

"Global warming CAUSES climate change." Every time you say it or write it, it makes another copy in your brain.

Certainly the terms are not mutually exclusive but they are not really interchangeable. They are related in terms of cause and effect.

There are arguments put forth about global warming and climate change on both sides that are not based on fact and that just makes the debate around it murkier.

Global warming is a fact. Global atmospheric temperatures are in fact rising. It has been measured. Yet the ignorant continue to dispute this.

Climate change has occurred before. There is scientific proof of this. These previous changes occurred without human industry pumping greenhouse gases into the air. This is a fact that is not often mentioned.

Nobody is ABSOLUTELY sure how much impact industry has had on the rise of global temperatures, but looking at temperature data since the begining of the industrial revolution it does seem evident that there is a trend of rising temperatures since that time. That would seem to indicate that human activity may indeed have an impact. But what we need to figure out in this debate is just how much our activity is in fact impacting the situation. The deniers are not helping in this regard since their argument is that there is no such thing as global warming in the first place.

Also there is much uncertainty about what kind of impact we can actually have on the current trend in terms of reversing it. We don't have a real good plan for controlling global climate, and the plans we do have are basically finger wagging at developing countries, who in turn argue that the western world has no right to tell them NOT to use resources without restriction, something the western world has done since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

In my experience it is always easier to tie a knot than it is to untie one. And this is a seriously tangled knot. This does not mean we should do nothing. We just need to be fairly certain that whatever we do has a real impact and is equitable, otherwise it has no chance of success. As the term suggests this is a global issue. Climate change is going to affect every living thing on the planet. This is a very sophisticated scientific and social issue. It does not help anyone to cloud the argument with unfactual information.

[defendandprotect]

61. You're right . . . a "more neutral" -- and less informative term than Global Warming --

a term preferred obviously by oil industry, capitalism --

[defendandprotect]

60. Good post -- PLUS there is a 50 year delay in Global Warming, therefore . . .

the effects we are feeling now reflect only human activity up to 1960 -- !!

[defendandprotect]

59. Rather they switched from Global Warming to confuse the public . . .

"Climate Change" can suggest something normal --

Global Warming certainly doesn't --

And, if the public didn't understand what it meant it was the fault of the

"free press" not the label.

It's been called Global Warming since first understood in the 1950's --

What it means is we are heating up the environment which brings chaotic weather

and chaotic conditions of every kind --

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bill McBlueState]

66. do you have any proof of this?

Who decided to change the terminology, and when? Please be specific.

[RuthK]

22. Terminology

Instead of "global warming" or "climate change", one climate expert (I believe from India) has proposed the term "catastrophic climate instability". This covers blizzards, floods, mudslides, droughts, tornadoes, etc.

The number of weather "events" is increasing and will continue to do so. I watch the weather and am amazed at the powerful low pressure areas that seem to influence half of the country. One of the reasons for the heavy snows has been the extremely low pressure at the center of the lows. It pulls in more moisture. Our local weatherman likened it to a hurricane in terms of pressure.

[northernlights]

13. but it was cold in the midAtlantic and Texas

so global warming is a lie. Center of the universe, ya know. Bushland. :sarcasm:

[nod factor]

17. Does anyone have a link

explaining just how the world can be cumulatively warming in the fashion of a hockey stick but as a result of said warming significant parts of the world experience record cold and winter? Common sense can be a difficult thing to get around sometimes.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nod factor]

23. Relax,

I just do not understand how the world could be exponentially warming (the hockey stick) yet significant parts of the world are currently experiencing record cold. It does not cumulatively 'add' up for me okay? All I ask is to be schooled with some relevant literature.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Because there are more parts of the world that are experiencing warm temperatures

Take this map of the temperature anomalies for the world for January 2010, compared with the average for the Januaries from 1951 to 1980:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=01&year1=2010&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg



It was colder over a large part of Russia; but warmer over northern Canada. Those 2 areas pretty much balance each other out (looking at the 'zonal mean' graph for that latitude, the anomaly was nearly 0). But a large part of central Asia and northern Africa was significantly above their normal temperatures.

(One thing to remember with maps like that - it does not show equal surface areas for all latitudes, eg Greenland looks a little bigger than Australia, when it's considerably smaller in reality; so you can't just compare the areas shown on the map and easily get the global average)

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. I live in hope

and when I'm in a good mood, I give people the benefit of the doubt on the chances of them understanding data or explanations.

[kestrel91316]

42. When they come here and post this crap, they don't WANT to understand.

They want to disrupt, or just LIE.

[darkstar]

43. Yes. And Global Mean Temperature

Global= world-wide, not one area or one nation or one hemisphere's bad winter, i.e. it's always summer elsewhere
Mean= the average across the globe, then, for a month, year, decade

[kestrel91316]

35. Climate change theory specifically predicted that we would see WORSE EXTREMES

of weather as a direct result of global warming. We are in fact seeing worse floods AND worse droughts, hotter highs AND lower lows (though the highs predominate), worse blizzards and bigger hurricanes.

I don't know exactly how they modeled and predicted this - took lots of PhD climatologists and it's not MY field of expertise, so I leave the theorizing and predicting to them.

[defendandprotect]

62. ....and no one -- no scientist -- can predict how this will all compound . . .

[Beaverhausen]

44. not record cold, record snowfall

I assume that is what you are talking about. When the oceans warm they evaporate faster, thereby the clouds hold more moisture, then you get more snow.

[Igel]

45. True.

But irrelevant in the case of the mid-Atlantic and S-SE US.

Snow takes up a lot more volume than rain. So if you get a foot of snow, you think, "Gee, look at all that precipitation--it must be because the air's containing more moisture." However, if on average a foot of snow = 2 or just under 2 inches of rain, on average, it doesn't necessarily follow. Moreover, colder final temperatures will cause more moisture to fall out of a volume of air of a given humidity and starting temperature, so even if you get more precipitation, it doesn't mean that there's more water in the air--just that more's fallen out.

What you'd need to show is that the amount of moisture that's fallen represents greater than average amounts of moisture in the air--and that it's increasing in accord with predictions, on average.

Texas has gotten about average precipitation this season. Much more than usual has been from snow. The reason is that conditions in the Arctic have caused the usual mass of cold air to occur in what's become a fairly infrequent position. When it goes there, the eastern/southern US gets more cold weather. Why it's in a different spot from usual is anybody's guess. It's been shifting ever since it was discovered, and probably shifted long before that. You confuse relatively local climate with global conditions, and natural variation with anthropogenic variation. Which, oddly, is exactly what you're arguing against.

[Dappleganger]

48. +1000

[AlbertCat]

27. Try remembering the entire globe is not your back yard.

You know what "el Niño" is? It's a warming of the surface temp in the South Pacific....it effects the WHOLE GLOBE due to ocean and air currents. One can even predict general trends in WEATHER (not climate) from a strong "el Niño" (or "la Niña"... a cooler South Pacific). Try this graphic out from Wikipedia:




Look at the December - February event map. Look at the US...look at the south and mid Atlantic region. It predicts cold and wet ( like... snow!)

Because the South Pacific is WARMER than usual. GET IT?

[kestrel91316]

37. But, but, El Nino is OCEAN WARMING. That's proof that GW isn't happening, right??

It's just a local problem. Let the fish worry about it.

[kestrel91316]

34. Gosh, I dunno, how on earth did we EVER have places with different temperatures and

weather, regardless of what the average global temps were????

It's ALL SO MYSTERIOUS AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE, and obviously not in the bible.

[daleo]

51. It's like the stock market

The market can be moving in a general overall direction, but some subset of companies' stock prices could move in the opposite direction. There can even be sort term fluctuations where the market direction reverses for a while, then goes back to its overall trend.

It's the same with climate data. Pretty well any large dataset covering a complex phenomenon will exhibit this behavior.

The long term trend is the thing to watch, and that trend has been a warming trend.

[Bill McBlueState]

67. easy:

the average of 2 and 4 is 3.

the average of 1 and 7 is 4.

See how the average went up, even though one of the data points went down?

[wellstone dem]

20. You mean that when it is a cold winter here that it is a hot hot hot

summer somewhere else. Impossible. My weather is the weather for all.

[KittyWampus]

24. Maybe if climatologists would use the term "Climate Volatility" which encompasses

the entirety of the phenomenon, there'd be less confusion.

[kestrel91316]

38. Nah. The RW would just label it ANOTHER nefarious name change

indicating our confusion, disarray, and prevarication. You can't win with these people. They are deliberately obtuse, and well paid for it.

[fascisthunter]

26. When it's summer north of the equator, it's winter south of the equator

commence freeper head explosion.

[unabelladonna]

28. what i don't understand

is why can't i be a progressive if i don't believe changes in climate are man made?
we cannot do anything to control the heavens/earth.
adapt.

[AlbertCat]

29. is why can't i be a progressive if i don't believe changes in climate are man made?

Because you've fallen for anti-science crap. It's not about "control" to begin with. Why do you think we cannot affect the planet we live on.... all 6? 8? billion of us? We cut down huge swaths that used to be forests, pump tons and tons of stuff into the atmosphere (you know...if the Earth were the size of an apple, the atmosphere would be the thickness of the peel...that thin). You think a century of this has no effect? A single volcanic explosion can affect things for decades!

Besides....why do you not trust science? If you don't, I suggest you stop using it (electricity, automobiles, medicine....)


As for adapting.... that didn't work out so well for the majority of species that have ever lived. Ask a dinosaur.

[unabelladonna]

31. i certainly do trust science

but i don't believe we can make any difference in the amount of time we have until TSHTF. i quite frankly don't want to change my lifestyle or pay more for gimmicky fixes (like CFLs) which will be a nightmare to dispose of. i don't believe we are in crisis. i do believe we must "fix" more immediate problems...like healthcare, ending these ridiculous wars, and getting people back to work.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nihil]

56. And *that* is the denialists response in a nutshell ...

> i quite frankly don't want to change my lifestyle

> i don't believe we are in crisis.

So no, you are not "progressive", you are illiterate, ignorant and lazy
(and all of them by choice rather than by misfortune).

[defendandprotect]

64. When we begin addressing ALL of our problems honestly, we can

walk and chew gum at the same time --

It is the game-playing which costs us so much time --

and the value in that is only for those few who profit from and who want to

continue on with exploitation of nature and human beings.

[Bigmack]

30. OF COURSE you can still be a progressive -

There are ignorant progressives just like there are cold winter storms on a warming planet. Denial is more that "just" the name of a big river. But I bet when you're sick, you take science's word for what caused the problem, and for what to do about it. Ms Bigmack

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Because disbelief in global warming requires ignorancy and scientific illiteracy.

Both of which are contrary to progressive values.

[NGC_6822]

50. STOP TECTONIC SLIPPAGE!

Surely these earthquake tragedies should be enough to convince anyone that we need to throw a few trillion dollars into the Ring of Fire fault zones. I'm ready to give my share to any politician that wants to step up to the PLATE on this cause. (No pun intended.)

[daleo]

52. Carbon dioxide traps heat

And burning fossil fuels increases the level of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus trapping more heat.

I don't know of any human activity that can affect plate tectonics, even if we were to spend trillions of dollars in the attempt.

[NGC_6822]

57. What is the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere?

Can you quote for me a percentage of atmospheric CO2 now and say, 50 or 100 years ago. And, can that percentage difference then be translated into temperature increase due to heat trapping? I'm sure this has been done; I just want to hear the numbers again, because I have forgotten.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. Figures:

1910: about 300 ppm
1960: about 317 ppm (both from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat)

1960: about 317 ppm
2010: about 389 ppm (both from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2; extrapolating for the last couple of years)

so it's about a 30% increase over the past 100 years, and 23% in the past 50 years.

IPCC on climate sensitivity:

the equilibrium global average warming expected if CO2 concentrations were to be sustained at double their pre-industrial values ... is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate value of about 3°C. It is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-4-5.html

It's logarithmic - each doubling increases the temperature by the same amount. And so if we take the estimate of 3°C for a doubling, we get:

long term temperature increase for 30% CO2 increase = ln(1.3)/ln(2) * 3°C = 1.1°C

[NGC_6822]

69. Thanks for the numbers.

I'll keep this and study it. Very interesting.

I may post another one to you in a day or two, but I need to look up something first.

[Uncle Joe]

72. You do good work, muriel.

:thumbsup: :)

[defendandprotect]

63. In order to "adapt" we need to rid ourselves of systems of exploitation . . .

that's patriarchy, organized patriarchal religions and their system of capitalism -- !!

"manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" which are the licenses to exploit

nature, natural resources, animal-life and even other human beings according to various

myths of inferiority . . . all for the benefit of the few.

[Uncle Joe]

49. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Elmore Furth.

[warm regards]

53. Incredible...

I have never seen so many climatologists gathered in one place.

[scottsoperson]

54. 5% of climate scientists disagree with al gore

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

[scottsoperson]

55. noaa

NOAA: 2009 Global Temperatures Well Above Average; Slightly Above-Average for U.S.
U.S. precipitation above normal for 2009

December 8, 2009

Global surface temperatures for 2009 will be well above the long-term average, while the annual temperature for the contiguous United States will likely be above the long-term average, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The analysis is based on global records, which began in 1880 and U.S. records beginning in 1895. The NCDC analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.

[semillama]

65. Not sure that link says what you think it does

The only Al Gore reference at that link:

"Former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” rates better than any traditional news source, with 26% finding it “very reliable” and 38% as somewhat reliable. Other non-traditional information sources fare poorly: No more than 1% of climate experts rate the doomsday movie “The Day After Tomorrow” or Michael Crichton’s novel “State of Fear” as very reliable."

That would be 64% of climate experts polled who at least think it's somewhat reliable.

The only 54% stat in that link is this one:

"A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”"

[fascisthunter]

73. Just Five Percent?

Actually that's a big number... how many scientists does 5% make? Hmmm... funny, I never heard of this 5%, are they the ones hired by big energy companies, because those were the only ones I saw peddling their bullshit about an issue that will cost mankind darely.

[defendandprotect]

58. And the Saudis have the fourth largest financial stake in FOX News -- !!!

[Canuckistanian]

74. While you all were getting snow and cold

We here in Eastern Ontario have been seeing one of the mildest winters I can recall.

Very little snow since mid-December and above-freezing temps for the latter half of February.

Not to mention that Toronto set a record for a COMPLETELY snow-free November.

You don't have to tell us Canadians that climate change is happening, especially those of us old enough to remember REALLY cold winters.

[Supersedeas]

76. you're going to make John Coleman at the Weather Channel snort again