Is the globe cooling?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:48 PM GMT on February 04, 2009

Share this Blog
7
+

Recently, one has been hearing statements in the media like, the "twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming" and the Earth has been cooling since 1998. Let's take a look at the validity of these statements. The warmest year on record, according to both NASA and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), was 2005. However, 1998 was virtually tied with 2005 for warmth, and the United Kingdom Hadley Center and Climatic Research Unit data set (HadCRU) rates 1998 as the warmest year on record. The three data sets use different methods, such as how they interpolate over missing data regions over the Arctic Ocean, and so they arrive at slightly different numbers for the the global average temperature. All three data sets are considered equally valid, so ignoring two of the three major data sets to claim that the globe has been cooling since 1998 is "cherry picking" the data to show the result you want.

Furthermore, 1997-1998 El Niño event was the second strongest of the past century. El Niño events directly warm a large part of the Pacific, and indirectly warm (via a large increase in water vapor), an even larger region. This extra warming--estimated to have boosted the global temperature an extra 0.1-0.2°C--made 1998's warmth spike sharply upwards from the globe's usual temperature. The climate is best measured by a multi-year average of global temperatures, in order to remove shorter-term oscillations in weather patterns like El Niño. It is not scientifically valid to base a cooling argument on a year that spiked sharply upwards from the norm because of one the largest El Niño events in recorded history. A valid way to measure whether the globe is warming or cooling is to use the average global temperature for the past ten years or longer. The 1999-2008 period was significantly warmer (by 0.18°C, according to NOAA) than the previous ten year period, despite the fact the record (or near-record) warmest year 1998 was part of this previous period. Thus, it is scientifically correct to say the globe has been warming since 1998, not cooling. This warming rate has been about 0.16°C per decade over the past thirty years. Note that even over time periods as long as eight years, the average global temperature is not always a good measure of the long-term global warming trend--particularly if a large volcanic eruption in the tropics occurs.

How often should we expect to see a new global temperature record?
The climate should warm at a rate of about 0.19°C (0.34°F) per decade, according to the computer climate models used to formulate the "official word" on climate, the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Thus, we should expect to see frequent "warmest years on record". However, 2006, 2007, and 2008 were all cooler than 2005, and 2008 was merely the ninth warmest year on record. We know that the weather has a high degree of natural variability, with warmer than average years mixed in with cooler ones. How often, then, should we expect to set a new global temperature record if the climate is warming in accordance with global warming theory?


Figure 1. Predicted and observed global annual average temperatures between 1990-2008. The thin colored lines represent 55 individual runs of the twenty computer climate models used to formulate the 2007 IPCC report. These runs were done for the A1B "business as usual" scenario, which most closely matches recent emissions. The thick black line is the multi-model mean, and the thick colored lines with symbols denote actual observations, as computed by the three major research groups that estimate annual global temperatures. The sharp down spike in 1991-1992 is due to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, which cooled the Earth for two years. You can make these type of plots yourself, using the publicly available PCMDI IPCC AR4 archive. Image credit: Dr. Gavin Schmidt, realclimate.org.

The twenty models used to formulate the 2007 IPCC report (Figure 1) all predict the climate will warm, but with a lot of year-to-year variability due to natural weather patterns such as El Niño. Some of the IPCC models forecast periods lasting many years (in the extreme case, twenty years) with no global warming, due to natural climate and weather oscillations. If one plots up the cumulative distribution of these IPCC model runs to see how often a global average temperature record should be broken (Figure 2), one sees that the models predict a 50% chance that we'll unambiguously break the record every six years. By an unambiguous record, I mean a record that exceeds the previous one by at least 0.1°C. We've now gone ten years without unambiguously breaking the global temperature record, which the models say should happen 25% of the time. There is a 5% chance we'll go eighteen years without unambiguously breaking the record, so it is quite possible for natural variability in the climate system to obscure the global warming signal for periods of nearly twenty years. If we still haven't had a new global temperature record by 2018, then it is time to question global warming theory. If the theory is correct, there is a good chance that we will break the global temperature record during the next year that has a moderate or stonger El Niño event (and no major volcanic eruption in the tropics, since such major eruptions can dramatically cool the climate). Since we have La Niña conditions to start 2009, it is unlikely this year will break the record.


Figure 2. Cumulative distribution of how long one would have to wait for a new global temperature record to be set between the years 1990 and 2030. Image is based on the twenty climate models used to formulate the 2007 IPCC report, using the A1B "business as usual" scenario. The curves should be read as the percentage chance of seeing a new record (Y axis) if you waited the number of years on the X axis. The two curves are for a new record of any size (black) and for an unambiguous record (> 0.1°C above the previous record, red). The 95% confidence line is marked in gray. The main result is that 95% of the time, a new record will be seen within 8 years, but that for an unambiguous record, you need to wait for 18 years to have similar confidence. Image credit: Realclimate.org.

Is global warming slowing down?
The global average temperature has declined over the past three years (Figure 1) and global average sea surface temperature (SST) has not increased over the past seven years (Figure 3). Is global warming slowing down, then, and taking a break? That was the theory advanced by a group of German climate modelers (Keenlyside et al., 2008) in the journal Nature in 2008. Using a climate model that offered a unique way to handle the initial distribution of SSTs, they concluded that over the next ten years, natural variations in the climate may temporarily mask the global warming due to greenhouse gases. They stated: "North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming". However, they go on to state that greenhouse-gas driven global warming will resume full-force after the ten-year break is over. Other climate modelers disagree with this predicted "break" in global warming. Both theories are reasonable ones, and it is possible that the recent cool years portend the ten-year "break" from global warming hypothesized by Keenlyside et al. It is too early to tell, since the relative coolness of the past few years could easily be natural "noise" (weather) imposed on the long-term global warming trend. The fact that we've had a cold winter in eastern North America and in the UK--or any other anecdotal cold or snow-related record you may hear about--can't tell us whether global warming may be slowing down or not. The amount of global warming over the past century has only been about 1.3°F (0.74°C). Thus, it should not surprise us, for example, if temperatures during tonight's hard freeze in Florida bottom out at 25°F, instead of the 24°F it would have reached 100 years ago. The long-term ten and thirty year trends in global temperature are solidly upwards in accordance with global warming theory, and claims that the globe is cooling cannot be scientifically defended.


Figure 3. Global average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) from 1990-2008. SSTs have not increased in the past seven years. Image credit: NASA/GISS.

References
Keenlyside, N.S., M. Latif, J. Jungclaus, L. Kornblueh, and E. Roeckner, 2008, "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector", Nature 453, No. 7191, pp. 84-88, May 1, 2008

Further reading
2008 temperature summaries and spin by Gavin Schmidt of realclimate.org.

My next post will be on Monday.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 403 - 353

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21Blog Index

Quoting TampaSpin:
So far 41 bloggers have been to my blog and participated in the poll....this first number in bold is the number of votes followed by the percent!!

Answer Text Votes %
1) There are changes in the atmosphere, including added CO2 from human activities, but significant climate effects are likely to be all within natural limits. 11 26.83%
2) Any recent warming is most likely natural. Human input of CO2 has very little to do with it. Solar, naturally varying water vapor, and similar variables can explain most or all of the climate changes. 8 19.51%
3) The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. 7 17.07%
4) There is warming and the human addition of CO2 causes some of it, but the science is too uncertain to be confident about current attributions of the precise role of CO2! 6 14.63%
5) I really don't care! 4 9.76%
6) There is no warming; it is a fabrication based on inaccurate/inappropriate measurement. Human activity is not having any significant effect on Climate. 2 4.88%
7) The IPCC WG1 is compromised by political intervention; I agree with those scientists who say that the IPCC WG1 is underestimating the problem. 2 4.88%
8) The IPCC WG1 seriously understates the human influence on climate. I agree with those scientists who say that major mitigation responses are needed immediately to prevent catastrophic serious warming! 1 2.44%


It's time to break out the swords. Off with the infidel's heads! Only 2.44 % believe that we don't need immediate and drastic action? Call somebody, call Bin Laden! This is an outrage. (This is barely statistically signficant, but interesting nontheless.) Cheers.
402. Inyo
Well, global warming or no we are finally getting some rain in southern California and this is a very good thing
Member Since: September 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 897
Can anyone please explain the shoes in #357 ??? It does not compute.

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Quoting weathers4me:



I agree with you there. That brings up another interesting debate. What did in the Dinosaur? My belief is that a combination of things caused it. Starting with disease and mass die off caused by biting insects and the impact effect of the rock and or/ massive volcanic eruption only delivered the final blow. I think humans will fare better that the Dinosaurs, we have sceince and medication on our side. But then again, who know what Mother Nature has in store for us. We are living here on her time clock.

Your theory fits with the ever growing concensus of modern thought. We often forget how many species survive this period that covered millions of years. It didn't happen all at once.
I fear the mutations of the flu bug and mosquito born illness more than I do GW.
By the way let's call it PW (planet warming) ol' George has had his share by now....LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
399. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
yup is it funny.

according to Mauritius Cyclone List, Gael name was contributed by Madagascar.
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 52 Comments: 46914
Quoting GulfPoet:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)


It is not possible to divorce the realities of uncertainty and the observer effect - from the endless babble on computer modeling climate change. It is also - as demonstrated just this past week - an observed phenomenon that even near term climate modeling for weather is riddled with error and .... uncertainty.

To hold to a theory, computer program, or limited observational data with such absolutism, as in the case of AGW - is both illogical, and borders on religious thought. The real denialists are those who refuse to accept reality as it is, not according to the computer models, and denying the near infinite complexities and possibilities of uncertainty at the quantum level, which have direct bearing on the larger systemic outcomes.

Thus, through logic we must deduce that beyond the scientific inquiry lie motives. And it is this motive factor that most of us are truly seeking to unveil. The record of history is that whenever and institution or government seeks to distort the scientific method of discovery - the motive is always control. Whether the tyranny of the church in the dark ages, or the reign of kings - control is always the end, and the means are inquisition, proselytizing and finally…...yes.... death and taxes. You will submit to the dogma - and our control.

Freedom, liberty and objective truth serve all of us through rational thought and science - that continues to ask questions and challenge preconceived notions and delights in understanding the world the way it really is, not how we wish or think it should be.


You are one of my favorite Bloggers.......well put my friend......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HadesGodWyvern:
I think it is pronounce Ja el.


May it be; still amusing though. :p
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GulfPoet:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)


It is not possible to divorce the realities of uncertainty and the observer effect - from the endless babble on computer modeling climate change. It is also - as demonstrated just this past week - an observed phenomenon that even near term climate modeling for weather is riddled with error and .... uncertainty.

To hold to a theory, computer program, or limited observational data with such absolutism, as in the case of AGW - is both illogical, and borders on religious thought. The real denialists are those who refuse to accept reality as it is, not according to the computer models, and denying the near infinite complexities and possibilities of uncertainty at the quantum level, which have direct bearing on the larger systemic outcomes.

Thus, through logic we must deduce that beyond the scientific inquiry lie motives. And it is this motive factor that most of us are truly seeking to unveil. The record of history is that whenever and institution or government seeks to distort the scientific method of discovery - the motive is always control. Whether the tyranny of the church in the dark ages, or the reign of kings - control is always the end, and the means are inquisition, proselytizing and finally…...yes.... death and taxes. You will submit to the dogma - and our control.

Freedom, liberty and objective truth serve all of us through rational thought and science - that continues to ask questions and challenge preconceived notions and delights in understanding the world the way it really is, not how we wish or think it should be.



Nicely worded. You had better be careful though because you are risking being branded an "infidel" on GW. You might get censored or worse get your hands cut off. If a sufficiently large computer says something is so, then it's as if God himself is speaking.
395. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
I think it is pronounce Ja el.
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 52 Comments: 46914
Quoting HadesGodWyvern:
TC GAEL Extended Forecast and Intensity
=====================================

48 HRS: 21.4S 51.0E - 105 knots (Cyclone Tropical Intense)
72 HRS: 24.1S 51.9E - 110 knots (Cyclone Tropical Intense)


TC Gael? Gale?

Wow, that's original.

Do we get Typhoon Windy next?

Maybe Tropical Storm Breeze. Hurricane Blustery sounds a good candidate....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
well iam going to hook up a couple of more fans bbl
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
392. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
TC GAEL Extended Forecast and Intensity
=====================================

48 HRS: 21.4S 51.0E - 105 knots (Cyclone Tropical Intense)
72 HRS: 24.1S 51.9E - 110 knots (Cyclone Tropical Intense)
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 52 Comments: 46914
Quoting theshepherd:


And if some of those puppies were still here, then we wouldn't be.



I agree with you there. That brings up another interesting debate. What did in the Dinosaur? My belief is that a combination of things caused it. Starting with disease and mass die off caused by biting insects and the impact effect of the rock and or/ massive volcanic eruption only delivered the final blow. I think humans will fare better that the Dinosaurs, we have sceince and medication on our side. But then again, who know what Mother Nature has in store for us. We are living here on her time clock.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weathers4me:
Remember that 99.99999999999% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct.

Gee that's comforting. The only point I was making, and I agree with you about theories, is that there is physical evidence of impact craters on Earth that could have only been made by an outer-space missile. There is evidence of this all around the globe. There is evidence of lava layers at all periods and all locations on Earth. There fore, since this has happened (and still happening), why do you say that these are theories?




Craters, yep, no doubt. A big one is proposed to have created the Gulf of Mexico and perhaps caused the demise of the Dino population. My theory comment is relagated to the GW debate and the proposed solutions the green folks think we need. Use current energy vs stored energy etc. I am fearful the go green way may make us brown in the end and may unecessarily to boot.
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Quoting Ossqss:


Remember that 99.99999999999% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct.


And if some of those puppies were still here, then we wouldn't be.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks for clearing up all the controversy-not!. Stick to the tropics.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:
We will all agree that any tracking/forecasting model outside of 3 days or less is speculation at best... and model data 7 - 10 days out is garbage.

If we agree with that statement... and they cannot predict the weather accurately with in 7 - 10 days... why in the world would I believe predictions 25-100 years out?

Do they have that much better Model data and scientists then the people trying to protect the CONUS from Hurricanes?



I think you are confused regarding the difference between weather models and climate models.

Weather models are a model of fluid dynamics in a gridded scale, susceptible to errors in resolution and initialization.

Climate models are models of Earth's energy budget with a few small caveats such as biome coverage which may effect absorption vs. reflection but essentially, these are relatively small effects compared to the global effects of well-mixed greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
Yum! as long as its hot!
I'm cold and hungry!
Quoting conchygirl:
Apple Pie and Goulash - yum!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Remember that 99.99999999999% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct.

Gee that's comforting. The only point I was making, and I agree with you about theories, is that there is physical evidence of impact craters on Earth that could have only been made by an outer-space missile. There is evidence of this all around the globe. There is evidence of lava layers at all periods and all locations on Earth. There fore, since this has happened (and still happening), why do you say that these are theories?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Remember that 99.99999999999% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct.
extintion is the way of the earth been that way since the beginning be that way till the end
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weathers4me:
The fact is you nor anyone else really knows the truth. Interpretation of referenced facts to any conclusion is simply preference and not indisputable as fact. Tell me, what should the temp of the earth actually be right now, with or without the influence of man. You cannot correctly answer that question. It would again only be speculation and extrapolation and not fact. The earth controlls us not the inverse

I agree with you there. We are at the mercy of the Earth and all the process of the universe. There are some things that we cannot control. If we cannot adapt to a changing environment, we will not survive as a species.

As far as what the temp should be, you got me. We have no way to know that.


BTW, your last statement is indicative of the entire GW debate.
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Quoting weathers4me:
The fact is you nor anyone else really knows the truth. Interpretation of referenced facts to any conclusion is simply preference and not indisputable as fact. Tell me, what should the temp of the earth actually be right now, with or without the influence of man. You cannot correctly answer that question. It would again only be speculation and extrapolation and not fact. The earth controlls us not the inverse

I agree with you there. We are at the mercy of the Earth and all the process of the universe. There are some things that we cannot control. If we cannot adapt to a changing environment, we will not survive as a species.

As far as what the temp should be, you got me. We have no way to know that.


Remember that 99.99999999999% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct.
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
381. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Mauritius Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory Number SEVENTEEN
TROPICAL CYCLONE GAEL (08-20082009)
22:00 PM Réunion February 5 2009
==================================

At 18:00 PM UTC, Tropical Cyclone Gael (970 hPa) located at 18.3S 55.1E has 10 minute sustained winds of 65 knots with gusts of 90 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving west at 8 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T4.5

Hurricane-Force Winds
===================
close to the center

Storm-Force Winds
==================
25 NM radius of the center extending up to 30 NM in the southern semi-circle

Gale-Force Winds
==================
60 NM radius from the center extending up to 100 NM in the eastern semi-circle

Near Gale-Force Winds
======================
120 NM radius from the center, extending up to 160 NM in the eastern semi-circle

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 18.6S 53.3E - 75 knots (Cyclone Tropical)
24 HRS: 19.3S 52.2E - 85 knots (Cyclone Tropical)

Additional Information
========================
GAEL is currently tracking in the north of Réunion Island. It is regularly intensifying within a favorable environment. System is expected to keep on tracking globallu west-southwest within the next 12 hours and beyond, to recurve southwest regularly intensifying.
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 52 Comments: 46914
Quoting Orcasystems:
Ok, since KEH has put down the stir stick.. I will put in my two cents.

I have heard people using Models.. Predictions.. Data.. Ouji boards to tell us about GW. This is a matter that has been extensively studied in the last 15-20 years. They are warning us of the dire consequences of what is going to happen in 25-100 years time.

We all have to agree with the above.. no matter what side of the GW equation you are on.

Hurricanes have been extensively studied for 50 years. Using Models.. Predictions.. Data.. Ouji boards to tell us what is happening and where/when, with in the next 10 days (normally long range).

We will all agree that any tracking/forecasting model outside of 3 days or less is speculation at best... and model data 7 - 10 days out is garbage.

If we agree with that statement... and they cannot predict the weather accurately with in 7 - 10 days... why in the world would I believe predictions 25-100 years out?

Do they have that much better Model data and scientists then the people trying to protect the CONUS from Hurricanes?


The "doc" covered this subject several blogs ago. Forgive any flaw in memory.
Seems the meandering tumbles of a weather system across an impossible to model resistance to flow of landscapes and other meandering tumbling weather systems yields a ten day prediction no more accurate than the toss of a coin.
Long range models feed more on trends and historical and current recordings in relation to what may or may not indeed force a climate change.
I'm curious though as to the wide descrepencies in these models and wonder if an operating philosophy is more of an influence than addmitted.
Comments if I misunderstand....?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Apple Pie and Goulash - yum!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The fact is you nor anyone else really knows the truth. Interpretation of referenced facts to any conclusion is simply preference and not indisputable as fact. Tell me, what should the temp of the earth actually be right now, with or without the influence of man. You cannot correctly answer that question. It would again only be speculation and extrapolation and not fact. The earth controlls us not the inverse

I agree with you there. We are at the mercy of the Earth and all the process of the universe. There are some things that we cannot control. If we cannot adapt to a changing environment, we will not survive as a species.

As far as what the temp should be, you got me. We have no way to know that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:



That's the dance...

The further the planet warms the closer we get to climatic states that aren't stable. An ice-free arctic would certainly lead to more precipitation at high latitudes.
it already has there have been some items ive read that shows evidence of increases to global water vapour levels this may also be linked to larger than normal accumlating rain snow events as of late
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weathers4me:
362. Ossqss 6:26 PM GMT on February 05, 2009
THe conjecture you put forth as a future impact is the theory. No one can definitively prove or deny any of these items. We think then we guess, and then rethink and reguess based upon the little we actually know. Hence the GW theory not the GW fact.


Are you saying that there is no proof of previous impacts to Earth? There are carters that prove this. Look at the moon and Mars, FACT. There will be future impacts to Earth again. FACT. As far as GW goes. It is a fact that the Earth goes through cycles of hot and cold. Fact, man is contributing to Earth's demise as we know it. The only thing that remains theory is to what point and how much are we affecting it.


The fact is you nor anyone else really knows the truth. Interpretation of referenced facts to any conclusion is simply preference and not indisputable as fact. Tell me, what should the temp of the earth actually be right now, with or without the influence of man. You cannot correctly answer that question. It would again only be speculation and extrapolation and not fact. The earth controlls us not the inverse.
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Foxx,

I think I am beginning to detect a pattern here.

Apple Pie courtesy of GulfPoet
Goulash courtesy of KOTG

Yikes, now I am cold and hungry
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Stanb999:


But wont a ice free arctic bring more snow to those areas? It will take time but the feedbacks are quite resilient.



That's the dance...

The further the planet warms the closer we get to climatic states that aren't stable. An ice-free arctic would certainly lead to more precipitation at high latitudes.
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
grasses go into a hibenated state just as a treea do everthing pulls into the root leaving on top a brown dry appearance
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
KOTG - turn those fans OFF!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
362. Ossqss 6:26 PM GMT on February 05, 2009
THe conjecture you put forth as a future impact is the theory. No one can definitively prove or deny any of these items. We think then we guess, and then rethink and reguess based upon the little we actually know. Hence the GW theory not the GW fact.


Are you saying that there is no proof of previous impacts to Earth? There are carters that prove this. Look at the moon and Mars, FACT. There will be future impacts to Earth again. FACT. As far as GW goes. It is a fact that the Earth goes through cycles of hot and cold. Fact, man is contributing to Earth's demise as we know it. The only thing that remains theory is to what point and how much are we affecting it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I like that. Theme of the blog: LOL
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
gw is kinda like a big pot of goulash and no matter how it turns out we all got to eat it
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
KEH,
Wanna borrow a broken snow shovel????
LOL
Quoting KEHCharleston:
I have to say there is good empirical evidence for man changing the weather.

That Canadian blast of cold in the south.... can be directly laid at the feet of KOTG and Orca.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:
Stan,

The main change in albedo comes from northern hemisphere snow cover during the spring and summer months. Snow cover during this time has shown statistically significant decreases in coverage.


But wont a ice free arctic bring more snow to those areas? It will take time but the feedbacks are quite resilient. The reason I say this is that the earths temperature is for the most part very stable. We measure "changes" in <1 degree increments decade to decade.

Think of it, we are on a mound of rock covered with water and gases, Flying in a wobbly path with a varying rotation around an explosion millions of miles away.

And some folks expect to have no change. ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
gw is kinda like a big pot of goulash and no matter how it turns out we all got to eat it
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It's dead here trust me. Looks like seaweed.

Quoting conchygirl:
Good to hear that as I thought ours was dead too. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Come,..sit down and I'll explain relativity to ya..

And bring me a Diet Pepsi will ya..

Its torrid here




OK -- WHATS WITH THE SHOES OR HIGH HEELS?
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
its not dead just sleeping
Good to hear that as I thought ours was dead too. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
THe conjecture you put forth as a future impact is the theory. No one can definitively prove or deny any of these items. We think then we guess, and then rethink and reguess based upon the little we actually know. Hence the GW theory not the GW fact.
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Quoting Ossqss:
23 cold degrees in east Sarasota last night. At least I will not have to cut the grass for 6 weeks since its dead now.
its not dead just sleeping
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
My vote is on the Rock.

BTW, the only fact on this blog is the fact the discussions revolve around only theory .

Theories, I agree but they are based on sound scientific evidence and I respect these theories. We have evidence that such life ending events happened in the past and will repeat themselves given time. So the question is not if, but when.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
23 cold degrees in east Sarasota last night. At least I will not have to cut the grass for 6 weeks since its dead now.
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Quoting Ossqss:
BTW, the only fact on this blog is the fact the discussions revolve around only theory .



It's not theory that CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR radiation. This is a proven scientific fact.
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
Come,..sit down and I'll explain relativity to ya..

And bring me a Diet Pepsi will ya..

Its torrid here

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129844
i got like nine turbo fans on the roof of the building all pointing s
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I have to say there is good empirical evidence for man changing the weather.

That Canadian blast of cold in the south.... can be directly laid at the feet of KOTG and Orca.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Stanb999:


That is why Ice melt in the Arctic is largely irrelevant. It has strong negative feed backs. :-)

The temps in the Antarctic on land aren't close to the melt point, likewise with Greenland (Even the name Greenland shows good marketing.LOL).

So where is this higher threat of a higher albedo coming from? Not the data. In the past it was thought to be from the arctic and the sea water.... But that has been dispelled. It is well known that glaciers retreat and advance is due to precipitation not temperature. So where is this change to take place?
a major climate shift
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
353. Skyepony (Mod)
Orca~ I myself am a little sceptical of the climate models, it's a bit of info to consider but also remember the worst of the gloom & doom models didn't see the artic opening, permafrost melting & migrations happening til much later than they have.. 10 years ago 40-50 years the models said would be the 1st we saw a ship through the NW passage.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 225 Comments: 39388

Viewing: 403 - 353

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron