An Explanation For The Climate Change Denier

[discocrisco01]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?src=twrhp">Here is a good reason why the climate change deniers are wrong about the cold weather

THE earth continues to get warmer, yet it’s feeling a lot colder outside. Over the past few weeks, subzero temperatures in Poland claimed 66 lives; snow arrived in Seattle well before the winter solstice, and fell heavily enough in Minneapolis to make the roof of the Metrodome collapse; and last week blizzards closed Europe’s busiest airports in London and Frankfurt for days, stranding holiday travelers. The snow and record cold have invaded the Eastern United States, with more bad weather predicted.

All of this cold was met with perfect comic timing by the release of a World Meteorological Organization report showing that 2010 will probably be among the three warmest years on record, and 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record.

How can we reconcile this? The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes. Last winter, too, was exceptionally snowy and cold across the Eastern United States and Eurasia, as were seven of the previous nine winters.

For a more detailed explanation, we must turn our attention to the snow in Siberia.

Annual cycles like El Niño/Southern Oscillation, solar variability and global ocean currents cannot account for recent winter cooling. And though it is well documented that the earth’s frozen areas are in retreat, evidence of thinning Arctic sea ice does not explain why the world’s major cities are having colder winters.

But one phenomenon that may be significant is the way in which seasonal snow cover has continued to increase even as other frozen areas are shrinking. In the past two decades, snow cover has expanded across the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, especially in Siberia, just north of a series of exceptionally high mountain ranges, including the Himalayas, the Tien Shan and the Altai.

The high topography of Asia influences the atmosphere in profound ways. The jet stream, a river of fast-flowing air five to seven miles above sea level, bends around Asia’s mountains in a wavelike pattern, much as water in a stream flows around a rock or boulder. The energy from these atmospheric waves, like the energy from a sound wave, propagates both horizontally and vertically.

As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased.

The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere, just as a bigger rock in a stream increases the size of the waves of water flowing by.

The increased wave energy in the air spreads both horizontally, around the Northern Hemisphere, and vertically, up into the stratosphere and down toward the earth’s surface. In response, the jet stream, instead of flowing predominantly west to east as usual, meanders more north and south. In winter, this change in flow sends warm air north from the subtropical oceans into Alaska and Greenland, but it also pushes cold air south from the Arctic on the east side of the Rockies. Meanwhile, across Eurasia, cold air from Siberia spills south into East Asia and even southwestward into Europe.

That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century. Most forecasts have failed to predict these colder winters, however, because the primary drivers in their models are the oceans, which have been warming even as winters have grown chillier. They have ignored the snow in Siberia.

Last week, the British government asked its chief science adviser for an explanation. My advice to him is to look to the east.

It’s all a snow job by nature. The reality is, we’re freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it

In a simple word, brilliant analysis.

[tabatha]

1. Yep, there have been a few articles like this.

But way, way, way ^ 100 too complicated for climate change deniers.

[The Straight Story]

2. Warmest on record. How long were records kept? Warmer now then when Jesus rode dinosaurs?

:)

[GoCubsGo]

38. It doesn't matter.

Al Gore is still fat.

;-)

[SheilaT]

3. A lot of people don't understand

that there is a difference between climate and weather.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[PeaceNikki]

5. lolz

[tabatha]

7. Yep, the last decade was the warmest decade on record.

Getting colder?

[tkmorris]

8. Still letting other people tell you what to believe in?

You might want to do a little research of your own. You can really look foolish when you just parrot something someone else said.

[HawkerHurricane]

10. How to get rich off of Global Warming:

1. Have a degree in a climate science.
2. Say global warming is not happening.
3. Collect check from think tank funded by oil and coal companies.

How NOT to get rich off Global Warming:
1. Have a degree in climate sciences.
2. Collect data and do research into what is happening. Publish data.
3. Be condemned by think tanks funded by oil and coal companies.

[BeFree]

15. How to get rich, or lose? Very true. eom

[theophilus]

12. I fear you have been duped Duper. n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

17. The Koch brothers thank you. (n/t)

[JDPriestly]

23. The explanation in the article in the original post makes a lot of sense.

Here in Los Angeles, we had a relatively cool summer and are now having more rain than I can remember for this early in our rainy season. I measured 8 1/2 + inches in a tall jar I placed in our garden.

Now, we could have a really dry spring. This could be the only rain we get.

But the odd thing is that nearly the entire coast of California has had this heavy rainfall. I remember years when Santa Barbara had heavy rainfall in the Spring, but this year it has reached to San Diego. That could be explained by the idea that the current is moving North and South rather than West to East.

We shall see, but the explanation in the OP makes a lot of sense to me.

My Paperwhite narcissus have already bloomed and are beginning to fade. They used to bloom in February.

Other plants that did not show up until February let's say 20 years ago have been up for weeks now. So, as a gardener, I'm noticing a definite change in the seasons here in California. Some of my deciduous trees have just lost their leaves, yet my spring plants are up and some even blooming. That is very strange. My avocado tree is already starting to blossom. Just too strange.

[NHDemProg]

35. Please be so kind then...

to explain why the polar caps are SHRINKING if the world is getting colder?

[DemoTex]

39. Shirley you Josh.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Enjoy your stay

And happy new year.

[Denninmi]

6. I don't think they'll believe it. Their loss.

Half of them still wouldn't believe if if Florida were under 10 feet of water.

[onethatcares]

9. at a party last night someone brought up the climate change

and tied it into global warming, I was amazed someone else saw the correlation.

[notesdev]

11. Make a prediction

any prediction, based on Global Warming cum Climate Change

Just one that can be used as a test to tell whether this hypothesis is correct or incorrect, so it can't be something that can be predicted on a different basis.

A prediction is required for scientific validity and so far I haven't seen a one made from this hypothesis that has turned out to be correct - and I've seen a great many that have turned out to be wildly incorrect. A non-falsifiable hypothesis is religion, not science.

If "global warming/climate change" can be used as an explanation for both warming AND cooling, it doesn't seem to have much predictive value at all.

[theophilus]

13. Overall warming and local cooling. Makes sense to me. n/t

[BeFree]

14. But that's just plain wrong

"global warming/climate change" can be used as an explanation for both warming AND cooling,

There is no global cooling. Can you say that?

So, if you can, you will see how your words are wrong. Yeah, there is localized cooling.
But globally, we are getting hotter and hotter.

[notesdev]

16. OK fine

So make a prediction, one independently verifiable, and hopefully not too far out in the future, so we can test the hypothesis.

[BeFree]

18. Which hypothesis must we test?

What exactly do you have in mind?

[notesdev]

19. The global warming hypothesis

The hypothesis is that something called "global warming" is occurring.

Since it seems to morph to accommodate whatever facts arise, it's hard to pin down exactly what it is... I will leave that up to the believers.

All I want is one clear test where one can say yes this is true or no this is not true. Since the more extreme predictions (e.g. disappearance of snowy winters, catastrophic sea level rises, increased hurricane activity, rapid glacier melting, etc.) have all been disavowed by the global warming science community, I would simply like one easy, unambiguous test that can prove or disprove the theory.

That's how science works: hypothesis -> experiment -> validation, these are the keys to scientific method.

Give me one single thing by which the global warming hypothesis can be validated. Just one, all I'm asking - but it's got to be an actual scientific test, not one that can be fudged if the post-hoc facts contradict the original prediciton.

[BeFree]

20. CO2 in the atmosphere

It has been proven, time and again, that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes air temperature in our atmosphere to rise. Something about how CO2 holds heat. We are currently at 390 ppm and headed up.

Are you saying that particular CO2 science is not well known?

[notesdev]

21. Are you offering a testable prediction?

Please be more specific - what exactly are you saying the hypothesis predicts with regards to CO2, and how is this derived from AGW rather than from pre-existing atmospheric physics?

[BeFree]

22. Nevermind

You are a denier and I decided to never discuss this reality with deniers.
We can't help deniers. It is impossible. Have a nice day.

[notesdev]

24. That's not very scientific of you

I haven't denied anything here. A claim is being made - a very serious claim - and I am simply asking for the very minimum that scientific method demands (a verifiable experiment) to ascertain the truth of falsity of the claim.

I am even willing to discard all the previous claims in the name of AGW which have proven not to be true.

One single testable prediction - if that is too much to ask then what you believe in is not science, it is religion.

[BeFree]

25. CO2 in the atmosphere

It has been proven, time and again, that a rise in amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes air temperature in our atmosphere to rise. Something about how CO2 holds heat. We are currently at 390 ppm and headed up.

Are you saying that particular CO2 science is not well known?

[notesdev]

26. Are we going in circles here?

For the purpose of continuing this didactic dialogue, I accept without argument what you are saying about CO2.

What testable prediction then follows from this assertion? In other words, why should anyone care about atmospheric CO2 levels? What, if anything, is predicted to happen as a result of increased CO2, that it should be a concern to the general public, that would not happen if the AGW hypothesis was not true?

I'm being a bit of a stickler for something with some actual scientific rigor for a reason:

- When I was young they warned that global cooling would kill us all. This was "science".
- More recently, I was told that AGW would cause increasing hurricane activity, yet hurricane activity has decreased.
- I was told AGW would kill off the polar bears, but their numbers are as healthy as ever.
- I was told that AGW would cause dramatic sea level rises, but nothing out of the range of normal has actually occurred, and the biggest promoter of this particular warning bought a very expensive beach house.
- I was told that winter snow would disappear as a phenomenon in temperate zones, but the world over people are getting as much or more snow than ever.
- I was told that Himalayan glaciers were on track to be gone by 2035 - only a couple dozen years from now - and that this had scientific authority behind it - the exact same scientific authority as backs AGW. Yet, when the numbers were finally checked, it turned out that the math was terribly wrong, and that the worst case scenario was instead of 25 years away, hundreds of years away... at closest.
- Baby, it's cold outside! (predictions of warming contradicts first-hand observation)
(this list very incomplete, but I'll assume the point is made)


In short, I've been served up a lot of hot air on this topic, but nothing I could actually use as something that can predict future events. As someone with a bit of a science background, I know the main purpose of science is to be able to predict future events. Therefore the equation for me is simple: if AGW can accurately predict future events, it is worthwhile; if it cannot, then it is flawed and worthless. (<--- scientifically accurate statement, feel free to double check with anyone you know who has experience working with scientific method)

So give me a prediction. Why should I fear AGW? Why should I support the devotion of precious and scarce resources to addressing it, when those resources could otherwise go to heal the sick, feed the poor, provide jobs for the unemployed, pay down the national debt, etc.? What's going to happen if no action is taken, that would not happen if humanity ceased to exist tomorrow?

[BeFree]

27. Circles?

Heh. The temperature of the atmosphere is going to rise. And it will be because of us putting CO2 in the atmosphere.

What will happen as it does? We already see sea rise. We see icecaps melting. We see wild swings in the climate/weather. None of these are normal, not in such a short time span.

The rest of your conjecture is stuff you are pulling out of... somewhere.

Is it your hypothesis that there is no AGW, or that there will be no effects? Prove it.

[Synicus Maximus]

29. What is the proper average temperture for the globe?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. 0 Kelvin.

This is just a "brief" warming spell.

[notesdev]

30. It's not up to me to prove anything

That's a religious argument (e.g. "Prove Jesus wasn't the son of God"). If you put the onus on me to prove a negative you have already abdicated scientific inquiry and are now engaged in theology.

It is up to the person asserting something to prove it, not the other way around. All I have asserted are elementary facts about scientific method, which I would hope are not in dispute.

You say swings in climate and weather are not normal but the historical record contradicts that. In relatively recent historical times we went through a "Little Ice Age" (just a few hundred years ago) and before that a Medieval Warm period. Greenland was once actually green, hence its name. Areas now encased by ice were once sailed by Viking explorers. The ice caps do recede, but they grow back again as well.

In terms of CO2 concentration we are at a very low level compared to many times in the planet's past. CO2 levels have risen and fallen without the involvement of humanity and industry. And given that not a single AGW climate model actually accounts for the effect of CO2 on plant growth, I have every reason to believe that AGW predictions will continue to fail the test of reality.

The very difficulty you are experiencing in producing a testable prediction shows how weak the alleged science behind AGW really is. We can test gravity, we can test chemical reactions, we can test quantum mechanics, we can test every actual scientific hypothesis that exists - but we cannot test AGW? Then it is not science.

On the one hand I have AGW people telling me the planet is getting warmer, who predicted a very mild winter, and were completely and unambiguously wrong.

On the other I have people who tell me that solar cycles and not CO2 are the primary determinant of changes in the planet's climate, who successfully predicted that this December would be bitterly cold.

So unless you can do better I'm going to believe the guy who correctly predicts the future, then I can properly prepare with a warm winter coat rather than those bottles of sunscreen sitting uselessly in the closet.

[lunatica]

36. How can one predict something that is now in constant flux and change?

The changes are happening now, and as the instability sets in more change is happening. Perhaps that's the only thing that can be predicted. That and the fact that we'll see more climate extremes, including some that will get even more extreme.

[notesdev]

41. If the models are accurate you can

The positions of the planets are in constant flux and change, yet we can with great accuracy predict future positions of planets. We've been able to do this sort of thing ever since Leibnitz invented calculus. We have excellent tools for predicting the future of a constantly-changing system, IF our models are correct.

Heck, we just had a lunar eclipse a few days ago. Who would have known if we did not have correct science to give us the heads-up?

A better question is how can one attribute specific changes to AGW with these levels of uncertainty and incompleteness of understanding? Without some form of religious faith, you can't.

[Angry Dragon]

28. The OP states some facts

it is up to you to disprove, not the other way around

[jimlup]

31. It has been predicted that warming causes more moister and weather instablity

I'm not really sure how you can really say what you are saying and actually believe it. The climate has warmed significantly and the evidence is dramatic. Further, extreme weather events were predicted and are now occurring. Cooling on a local scale during winter is different than climatic cooling. Shifts in climatic patterns are expected and predicted. You might want to take a closer look if you really care about information based reasoning. I'd recommend climateprogress.com as a good starting point.

[pintobean]

32. It's settled science

that continually evolves as predictions fail. Now, it's colder because of warming.

Here's my prediction:
In the future, ice makers will be a built-in part of a stove, rather than a refrigerator.

[notesdev]

33. There's no such thing

One cannot "settle" science. By its very nature all of its conclusions are eternally subject to revision, if they do not comport with observed reality.

Since its predictions fail quite regularly, perhaps it ought to be concluded that it is simply wrong and that if we are to understand out climate we must look for a different explanation.

[peabody]

34. Scientist have been predicting warming

temperatures and global temperatures have been breaking records since records have been kept. I would say that that's pretty good in terms of support for their hypothesis.

[iamjoy]

37. It Does Seem Ironic, Doesn't It (eom)