Global warming means more snowstorms

[meteorologist]

http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=CNG.065c95c9ec87c66849736794b4625215.831&show_article=1

[superjames1992]

Global warming causes every extreme weather event, right? I mean, when we had a lot of relatively snowless years in the 90s, it was because of global warming, and now that we've had some big snows (at least here in America and Europe), it's also because of global warming.

That said, if global warming will cause more extreme snowstorms IMBY, then bring it on!

[BethesdaWX]

These "scientists" just lost my respect completely.

There has never been a correlation between snowstorms and global temps.

[Clifford]

This apparently was an announcement made by a meteorologist, and not an article in a peer reviewed journal.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/jeff-masters-explains-that-it-used-to-be-too-cold-to-snow-in-mississippi/

A lot of the hot/cold cycles on the planet are from the redistribution of heat.

So, the recent cold snap that we went through was due to cold arctic air being shifted south (with warm air replacing it in the arctic). "Cold Arctic Air" has certainly been parts of weather reports for a very long time.

So, a perturbation of the weather patterns could cause arctic air to be blown into odd places.

And, as Jeff Masters mentioned, it often snows more at right around 32°F, 0°C. So, weather with more periods of time around 32°F/0°C could bring more snow in some places (but likely more warmth elsewhere).

So... One can conclude that precipitation patterns could change

But, such a conclusion of warmth causing snow will get the Warmists in to HOT WATER.

And, this warming conclusion is not generally held by tie IPCC and NOAA.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2011-03-01-snow-cold-global-warming_N.htm?csp=34news

[Snow_Miser]

Back in 2000 the alarmists were hyping about NO SNOW.

scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

[Mencken_Fan]

Jeff Masters is a down to earth guy with a solid reputation. I wouldn't discount what he says out of hand just because it goes against what one may believe.

[LakeEffectKing]

Jeff Masters is a down to earth guy with a solid reputation. I wouldn't discount what he says out of hand just because it goes against what one may believe.

But it doesn't go against JUST what ONE may believe.....it goes totally against what THEY (consensus climatologists) said just a few years back.

He may certainly be a down to earth guy, with a great reputation.....but that does not immunize him from "head scratching" comments....

[WeatherRusty]

But it doesn't go against JUST what ONE may believe.....it goes totally against what THEY (consensus climatologists) said just a few years back.

He may certainly be a down to earth guy, with a great reputation.....but that does not immunize him from "head scratching" comments....

It only makes sense that in a warmer world there will be less snow. Do you dispute that? If not then what was stated a "few years ago" still stands. Obviously it has not warmed enough at this time to reduce overall snowfall, as evidenced by the fact is has snowed allot recently. Will it still be snowing as heavily, or better stated will it be as likely to snow as heavily down here in the lower 48 when the global temp is 1C or 2C higher?

[LakeEffectKing]

It only makes sense that in a warmer world there will be less snow. Do you dispute that? If not then what was stated a "few years ago" still stands. Obviously it has not warmed enough at this time to reduce overall snowfall, as evidenced by the fact is has snowed allot recently. Will it still be snowing as heavily, or better stated will it be as likely to snow as heavily down here in the lower 48 when the global temp is 1C or 2C higher?

I wouldn't dispute that at all. And the "proper" response, IMO, from an objective scientist would be, "though the current weather has gone against the thoughts of what we envisioned as the world warms, we (AGW'ers) have either overestimated the speed at which this scenario would play out, or we missed some of the potential natural forcings that can make us temporarily have, still, some harsh winter conditions.".....

But no.....Dr. Masters (and others) pulls something new out of the magical AWG hat (that has hardly, if ever been proposed) and equates it DIRECTLY to AGW.....goalpost moving at it's finest....

Again, another "mini-hypothesis" falsified (as stated, per Will's IPCC reference) yet no mention......just morph and retreat....

[Mencken_Fan]

It only makes sense that in a warmer world there will be less snow. Do you dispute that? If not then what was stated a "few years ago" still stands. Obviously it has not warmed enough at this time to reduce overall snowfall, as evidenced by the fact is has snowed allot recently. Will it still be snowing as heavily, or better stated will it be as likely to snow as heavily down here in the lower 48 when the global temp is 1C or 2C higher?

As logical as that sounds, I don't fully buy it....Because I have to ask "how much warmer" and "what parts of the world?"

Because it's so darned cold, the high latitudes get little precipitation. If our warming is mostly in the Polar Regions, should we not see an increase in snowfall there? And if this warming causes an increase in jet stream perturbations, might we also see an increase of snowfall in the middle latitudes?

Warmer Arctic air is still cold air. If you upset the polar vortex so it spends more time over populated areas with "relatively warm" Arctic air... people are going to see a lot more snow.

Might our winters be shorter yet snowier?

This seems perfectly plausible - up to a limit. And whatever the case, I'd put no stock in anyone who claims it's "impossible."

[WeatherRusty]

I wouldn't dispute that at all. And the "proper" response, IMO, from an objective scientist would be, "though the current weather has gone against the thoughts of what we envisioned as the world warms, we (AGW'ers) have either overestimated the speed at which this scenario would play out, or we missed some of the potential natural forcings that can make us temporarily have, still, some harsh winter conditions.".....

But no.....Dr. Masters (and others) pulls something new out of the magical AWG hat (that has hardly, if ever been proposed) and equates it DIRECTLY to AGW.....goalpost moving at it's finest....

Again, another "mini-hypothesis" falsified (as stated, per Will's IPCC reference) yet no mention......just morph and retreat....

Or maybe enough time has not passed to allow for the general idea that snowfall will decrease. I know everyone is looking for confirmation, as in a linear progression towards the end game in AGW, but it just may not play out that way. Patience is what is needed, but we don't want to wait...we want and need to be sure now and many people need to see it in order to believe it. The evidence is ambiguous to many people. It's either wait and see, or have faith in the physical science. I understand that many people lack the needed confidence in the physical basis for AGW. What really bothers me is the realization that there are entities out there which seek to make sure it remains that way.

[WeatherRusty]

As logical as that sounds, I don't fully buy it....Because I have to ask "how much warmer" and "what parts of the world?"

Because it's so darned cold, the high latitudes get little precipitation. If our warming is mostly in the Polar Regions, should we not see an increase in snowfall there? And if this warming causes an increase in jet stream perturbations, might we also see an increase of snowfall in the middle latitudes?

Warmer Arctic air is still cold air. If you upset the polar vortex so it spends more time over populated areas with "relatively warm" Arctic air... people are going to see a lot more snow.

Might our winters be shorter yet snowier?

This seems perfectly plausible - up to a limit. And whatever the case, I'd put no stock in anyone who claims it's "impossible."

There will always be exceptions to generalities. The scenario you suggest is the likely cause of the past two NH winter anomalies in both where cold and snow have predominated. Open water later into the fall season over the arctic is warming the atmosphere there into the winter season as the water cools and finally freezes.

As summer arctic sea continues in its decline, will we experience more of the same in the coming winter seasons?

It is worth noting however, that when in Earth's past history global temperatures were at the levels projected as possible in the centuries and millennia ahead due to AGW, there was no arctic sea ice at all, no permanent northern polar cap and polar temps where as much as 30C warmer than today. Probably didn't snow much in the lower 48 back then!

[LakeEffectKing]

Or maybe enough time has not passed to allow for the general idea that snowfall will decrease. I know everyone is looking for confirmation, as in a linear progression towards the end game in AGW, but it just may not play out that way. Patience is what is needed, but we don't want to wait...we want and need to be sure now and many people need to see it in order to believe it. The evidence is ambiguous to many people. It's either wait and see, or have faith in the physical science. I understand that many people lack the needed confidence in the physical basis for AGW. What really bothers me is the realization that there are entities out there which seek to make sure it remains that way.

Which is what I stated as would be expected in an objective response:

"though the current weather has gone against the thoughts of what we envisioned as the world warms, we (AGW'ers) have either overestimated the speed at which this scenario would play out, or we missed some of the potential natural forcings that can make us temporarily have, still, some harsh winter conditions.".....

Again, the IPCC and other "athorities" should be a bit more forethcoming with their initial prognostications (going to your point of "patience") and proclaiming in official reports, that we may indeed see "snowier winters" along the way to a long term diminishment over "xx" years of time.....The lack of patience by the public is directly related to the lack of patience in the official messages of IPCC and other experts in proclaiming doom.

[WeatherRusty]

Which is what I stated as would be expected in an objective response:

"though the current weather has gone against the thoughts of what we envisioned as the world warms, we (AGW'ers) have either overestimated the speed at which this scenario would play out, or we missed some of the potential natural forcings that can make us temporarily have, still, some harsh winter conditions.".....

Again, the IPCC and other "athorities" should be a bit more forethcoming with their initial prognostications (going to your point of "patience") and proclaiming in official reports, that we may indeed see "snowier winters" along the way to a long term diminishment over "xx" years of time.....The lack of patience by the public is directly related to the lack of patience in the official messages of IPCC and other experts in proclaiming doom.

You are obviously correct, since you represent one instance of many who may feel the same way. Messaging is very, very important and maybe the messaging in the case of AGW is severely wanting. I can't argue this point. If that is the way you feel, then it is true enough.

In defense of the IPCC I might contend that the decline in arctic sea ice has progressed way ahead of schedule. They may have anticipated these type winters 30 years from now, or just maybe they didn't anticipate them at all.

[Clifford]

I think the problem is that we equate snow with cold weather....

However...

If we consider that the warmer we get the more precipitation.

Then it all would depend on where that precipitation lands.

So, considering Oregon.

In general, the more precipitation we get in the "Valley", the more precipitation we get in the mountains.

So, if the snow level is at 2000 ft, then the more rain we get in the valley, the more snow we'll get above 2000 ft (as well as higher elevations).

If it is warmer out, so the snow level is at 3000 ft, then we get rain in the valley, rain at 2000 ft, and snow at 3000 ft.

So, technically... the more rain we get in the valley during the winter... the more snow we will get someplace...

Changing precipitation patterns is likely one of the reason that many glaciers are apparently growing while others are shrinking.

http://www.iceagenow.com/growing_glaciers.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/list_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

So....

If one is in an environment that is below freezing much of the winter, then one might get snow.

As far as snow in LA. Apparently they do periodically get snow (or a dusting of white stuff).

http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we17.htm

But, it would be hard stretch to blame LA snow on Global Warming.

[BethesdaWX]

You are obviously correct, since you represent one instance of many who may feel the same way. Messaging is very, very important and maybe the messaging in the case of AGW is severely wanting. I can't argue this point. If that is the way you feel, then it is true enough.

In defense of the IPCC I might contend that the decline in arctic sea ice has progressed way ahead of schedule. They may have anticipated these type winters 30 years from now, or just maybe they didn't anticipate them at all.

The decline of arctic sea Ice is likely due to the raging +AMO...so YES....Of Course they didn't expect it...since they don't pay attention to oceanic cycles.

Arctic temps were very similar to todays in the 1940's...also a +AMO timeframe.

[LakeEffectKing]

You are obviously correct, since you represent one instance of many who may feel the same way. Messaging is very, very important and maybe the messaging in the case of AGW is severely wanting. I can't argue this point. If that is the way you feel, then it is true enough.

In defense of the IPCC I might contend that the decline in arctic sea ice has progressed way ahead of schedule. They may have anticipated these type winters 30 years from now, or just maybe they didn't anticipate them at all.

In a nutshell, this is EXACTLY what my 6 years plus on these (Eastern and here) climate boards has been the driver of my points toward the skeptical side.

There are many, many people who have much more knowledge than I wrt the details of climatology...you, obviously one of them, in many regards.

I'm kinda the guy outside looking at the very broad picture through the pure scientific lens (hence, my continued posts referencing the scientific method). And with a touch more coursework in the social sciences than the average Joe, I also may have a bit of an above average insight into the perception/reception certain types of messages (from purported "experts" as well as the layman) of the person on the street. And it truly comes down to tempering doom(AGW'ers)....and/or tempering ignorance (pure Denialists), the latter of which is not perceived well by one's own judgement. IOW, many of us as we learn a topic eventually end up overestimating our own understanding, and proclaim (as such) some portion of self-gratification. Unfortunately, with that comes subjectivity.

I really have no problems with the AGW hypothesis as stated. There MAY indeed be some significant impacts.....but there may not be....and that stance is the ONLY stance one can take if following the Sci. Method to the T. You and many papers have brought forth a decent amount of evidence....however....closer scrutiny seems to always show that there are large assumptive values, generalizations, vague interpretations, and sparse data/proxies that, nonetheless, plow toward various "sub" conclusions.....which then lose the "sub" part in other studies/papers and become conclusive bases which sever as a platform to promote additional hypotheses/studies, also incorporating new 'approximations', extrapolations, etc.....and the peer review process has failed to keep the road of the Sci. method clear, allowing for short cuts, or cutting edge "detours".....

And my take on this is truly an individual one....not derived from Big Oil, or Big Rush, or any consciecious manipulator.....I was once quite the "believer" back in my college days, almost as much as Skier!! ;P

But I digress..........and babble.....

[WeatherRusty]

In a nutshell, this is EXACTLY what my 6 years plus on these (Eastern and here) climate boards has been the driver of my points toward the skeptical side.

There are many, many people who have much more knowledge than I wrt the details of climatology...you, obviously one of them, in many regards.

I'm kinda the guy outside looking at the very broad picture through the pure scientific lens (hence, my continued posts referencing the scientific method). And with a touch more coursework in the social sciences than the average Joe, I also may have a bit of an above average insight into the perception/reception certain types of messages (from purported "experts" as well as the layman) of the person on the street. And it truly comes down to tempering doom(AGW'ers)....and/or tempering ignorance (pure Denialists), the latter of which is not perceived well by one's own judgement. IOW, many of us as we learn a topic eventually end up overestimating our own understanding, and proclaim (as such) some portion of self-gratification. Unfortunately, with that comes subjectivity.

I really have no problems with the AGW hypothesis as stated. There MAY indeed be some significant impacts.....but there may not be....and that stance is the ONLY stance one can take if following the Sci. Method to the T. You and many papers have brought forth a decent amount of evidence....however....closer scrutiny seems to always show that there are large assumptive values, generalizations, vague interpretations, and sparse data/proxies that, nonetheless, plow toward various "sub" conclusions.....which then lose the "sub" part in other studies/papers and become conclusive bases which sever as a platform to promote additional hypotheses/studies, also incorporating new 'approximations', extrapolations, etc.....and the peer review process has failed to keep the road of the Sci. method clear, allowing for short cuts, or cutting edge "detours".....

And my take on this is truly an individual one....not derived from Big Oil, or Big Rush, or any consciecious manipulator.....I was once quite the "believer" back in my college days, almost as much as Skier!! ;P

But I digress..........and babble.....

That was a really informative "babble". Thanks! Believe me, I have studied AGW from a great many angles and I can understand where you are coming from with regard to the imprecision inherent to the study of a complex system. In addition to that, in a very real sense climate is not something that exists as a true entity. It is more of a statistical construct envisioned by the human mind and we all know how indefinite and fuzzy the boundaries of a statistical representation can be.

In order to peer through this haze it is important to break down and simplify the problem. I don't mean make it simple, rather I mean try to rely on the fundamentals and first principle of science as closely as possible. This is the reason you rarely find me venturing out beyond the physical basis behind AGW, i.e. the greenhouse effect, radiative forcing and the somewhat more subjective question of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Going outside the core of the science becomes more speculative with many dependencies of uncertain impact.

So, maybe we are not all that far apart after all. I actually find 3C of warming for a doubling of CO2 quit a reasonable and conservative expectation. It could be more or it could be less. And that skier guy....he has also bought into the physical basis for the science...but if you ask him he will favor a low climate sensitivity giving about 1.5C to 2.0C of warming per doubling. He is not very radical at all....so give the guy a break!

[Clifford]

"though the current weather has gone against the thoughts of what we envisioned as the world warms, we (AGW'ers) have either overestimated the speed at which this scenario would play out, or we missed some of the potential natural forcings that can make us temporarily have, still, some harsh winter conditions.".....

Again, the IPCC and other "athorities" should be a bit more forethcoming with their initial prognostications (going to your point of "patience") and proclaiming in official reports, that we may indeed see "snowier winters" along the way to a long term diminishment over "xx" years of time.....The lack of patience by the public is directly related to the lack of patience in the official messages of IPCC and other experts in proclaiming doom.

Our climate goes through 30/60 year warming/cooling cycles. People have known about the cycles for a very long time.

I've done some mock-ups on the NOAA graphs:

In the top, I show the "Optimized" climate cycles with:

Cooling from 1880 to 1910.

Warming from 1910 to 1940,

Cooling from 1940 to 1970,

Warming from 1970 to 2000,

Cooling from 2000 to 2030.

Ideally your peaks, 1880, 1940, 2000 would all be at the same temperature.

The valleys, 1910 & 1970 would also be at the same temperature.

One can then calculate the deviation of the NOAA graph from the "ideal", with a slope of about 0.03 degrees per decade from 1880 to 1940, and about 0.06 degrees per decade from 1940 to 2000.

The second chart is showing basically the same thing.

Calculating the slope from peak to peak, valley to valley.

And one gets about 0.053 degrees per decade for the entire period, 1880 to 2011.

with about 0.061 from 1910 to 1975, and about 0.067 from 1940 to 2000.

So...

If the climate follows what we had for last century.

The years from 2000 to 2030 should be similar to the years from 1940 to 1970, with about 30 years of relatively little change.

Then...

One might expect the temperatures to rise again starting around 1930.

The IPCC will have a tough sell over the next two decades as the temperatures will likely continue to plateau until around 1930. However, the temperatures should be dropping down to 1970's levels. If the temperatures don't drop, then that would be a sign of climate change.

The question remains how much of this change is due to "Human Forcing" vs "Natural Forcing".

If we assume a 1 degree change from the Maunder Minimum to present (1700 to 2000). That would give us about a 0.3 degrees per century of "natural forcing". That would be consistent with the changes from 1910 to 1940.

That would leave us with about 0.03 degrees per decade or 0.3 degrees per century of Additional Forcing.

The question is whether this is all Anthropogenic, or if it is due to issues such as measurement errors, or the urban heat effect, or something else.

Still... if we attribute the entire 0.03 degrees per decade to Anthropogenic causes, it turns out to be less than 1/3 degree a century, well below the IPCC goals.

[Mencken_Fan]

In a nutshell, this is EXACTLY what my 6 years plus on these (Eastern and here) climate boards has been the driver of my points toward the skeptical side.

There are many, many people who have much more knowledge than I wrt the details of climatology...you, obviously one of them, in many regards.

I'm kinda the guy outside looking at the very broad picture through the pure scientific lens....

I may be in your ballpark.

Though not a specialist at anything, I've a broad foundation of general knowledge in many fields and a healthy IQ. I apply history, the social sciences, hard science, or whatever may be related to any subject I analyze. With climate change analysis reaching well above my abilities I have to consider the source as much as I consider hard science. And whether right or wrong, here is what I see...in general:

Pro AGW:

Nations with better educated citizens than ours.

Peer-reviewed literature.

The majority of scientists around the world.

Most secularists and liberals.

Most rational literature / some irrational literature.

Anti-AGW:

The United States.

Some scientists.

Conservatives and religious fundamentalists.

(Digging into websites I too often find religious roots.)

Much literature that even I can tear to shreds.

Some rational literature.

I would no more accept scientific analysis from American religious conservatives than I would jump off a bridge; so, right off the bat I've wiped out a massive chunk of the Anti-AGW crowd. For me, it's no contest; the Pro-AGW group wins by a country mile. What remains on the Anti-AGW side is certainly interesting and possible; and there are capable thinkers there...but it lacks widespread rational support.

So I take Pro-AGW; but egads - look at the spectrum there! My first instinct is to create a bell curve of their views and opt for something in the middle range. Though it may remain hidden for years to come, this is where the answer probably lies.

I would guess too that most rational Anti-AGW people actually accept some AGW but simply disagree with the IPCC (and can anyone really blame them?)

Whatever happens...I sure do hope we get some better clues soon - some of us are running out of time!

[BethesdaWX]

Pro AGW:

Nations with better educated citizens than ours.

Peer-reviewed literature.

The majority of scientists around the world.

Most secularists and liberals.

Most rational literature / some irrational literature.

Anti-AGW:

The United States.

Some scientists.

Conservatives and religious fundamentalists.

(Digging into websites I too often find religious roots.)

Much literature that even I can tear to shreds.

Some rational literature.

hey hey now... I think we have a few issues here.

Anti AGW

-The common public in Europe, Russia, US, China, and much of the well educated public in countries with higher "standards of living".

-Thousands upon thousands of scientists, around the globe, there is no consensus outside of the IPCC/Gov't...

-Peer reviewed literature here as well (both sides)

-Republicans/Conservatives

-Both Irrational & rational literature. Some denialists/crazies.

Pro AGW

-IPCC/Gov't science policy unions/Polititians/NASA/NOAA

-Thousands upon thousands of scientists

-peer reviewed literature (both sides)

-Irrational and rational literature.

-Democrats

I've read the blogs "skeptical science" & "Realclimate"...I could tear them up in a debate. Alotof it is mis-attributing the argument to focus on part of an argument, but not the actual connection. Thus, they can twist it.

WUWT has the same issues in reagrds to nitpicking arguments.

[Mencken_Fan]

Scientific Opinion on Climate Change

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

Public Opinion on Climate Change

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

I had read neither of these previously but am not surprised they support my personal analysis. One could of course ask me to reject all the entries in those links but where would it end?

What I find most curious about the climate change discussion is that of the PDO. I get the impression skeptics are all aware of the PDO while believing the AGW crowd is oblivious to such a well-known and powerful signal. The skeptics constant hammering on the PDO causes me to send up a "cause and effect red flag"; something is wrong / the entire problem can't be that easy.

If there's one, general human attribute I've seen in life, it's the universal failure of people to properly associate cause and effect. My stock went up/down because of this/that.....oh how many times people think they know something when they really don't!

Cause and effect apply everywhere; history, finance, politics, etc. but it's science where we expect the most serious considerations before coming to conclusions. With climate change there are many causes and many effects; worse yet, there is much overlapping and masking. Some say past is prologue but any wise investor knows future performance cannot be based on previous results.

When I see data from the past where we had variables a, b, and c resulting in x; must I believe the result will be the same when next I see the same set-up? For a simple experiment perhaps, but I suspect not with climate change. The more confident one is about cause and effect with highly complex issues...the more suspicious I become. Such is my nature.

Have a great weekend everyone.

[BethesdaWX]

Scientific Opinion on Climate Change

http://en.wikipedia...._climate_change

Public Opinion on Climate Change

http://en.wikipedia...._climate_change

I had read neither of these previously but am not surprised they support my personal analysis. One could of course ask me to reject all the entries in those links but where would it end?

What I find most curious about the climate change discussion is that of the PDO. I get the impression skeptics are all aware of the PDO while believing the AGW crowd is oblivious to such a well-known and powerful signal. The skeptics constant hammering on the PDO causes me to send up a "cause and effect red flag"; something is wrong / the entire problem can't be that easy.

If there's one, general human attribute I've seen in life, it's the universal failure of people to properly associate cause and effect. My stock went up/down because of this/that.....oh how many times people think they know something when they really don't!

Cause and effect apply everywhere; history, finance, politics, etc. but it's science where we expect the most serious considerations before coming to conclusions. With climate change there are many causes and many effects; worse yet, there is much overlapping and masking. Some say past is prologue but any wise investor knows future performance cannot be based on previous results.

When I see data from the past where we had variables a, b, and c resulting in x; must I believe the result will be the same when next I see the same set-up? For a simple experiment perhaps, but I suspect not with climate change. The more confident one is about cause and effect with highly complex issues...the more suspicious I become. Such is my nature.

Have a great weekend everyone.

Guess who moderates the climate-related topics on Wikipedia, and has been banned several times

Did you hear...almost 32,000 american scientists reject the AGW theory? And this is just the US

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Anyhow, yes, the PDO is just one factor of many that have led to warming over the past 30yrs. Anyone who is attributing only the PDO to the entire warming seen since 1700 is nuts IMFO.

The solar Magnetic Flux/10BE concentration is what has correlated to climate changes, and the case is no different here.

This is something we need to be aware of

[BethesdaWX]

Also note, even if the IPCC is correct about the sensitivities of increasing CO2 per doubling (which is likelynot true IMO), the effectiveness of CO2 warming has been near Zero due to decreasing humidity levels in the atmosphere between 300-700mb

The warming in recent decades cannot be predominately CO2 caused in this case. But what theory does work? Not the AGW theory.......... The solar/cosmic Ray theory!

http://www.friendsof...tml#Correlation

[Clifford]

Whatever happens...I sure do hope we get some better clues soon - some of us are running out of time!

If my analysis is correct:

We are entering a "cooling phase" of the global climate from about 2000 to 2030. However, we may see more of a plateau than actual cooling. A lot will depend on the current solar cycle 24, and the next couple of cycles, 25, 26,and 27.

How much patience do you have? Can you wait until 2040? 2050?

[BethesdaWX]

If my analysis is correct:

http://www.americanw...ms/page__st__18

We are entering a "cooling phase" of the global climate from about 2000 to 2030. However, we may see more of a plateau than actual cooling. A lot will depend on the current solar cycle 24, and the next couple of cycles, 25, 26,and 27.

How much patience do you have? Can you wait until 2040? 2050?

2000-2030? Care to explain?

PDO base went negative in 2007, AMO should be positive for another 7-10yrs. Aside from the Strong El Nino spike in 2010, the anoms have been a bit colder in yrs 2008. 2009, and now 2011. 2010 was a very warm year, yes, but it is surrounded by 3 cooler years.

Any more cooling at this point would be a bonus. Depends on what the upcoing solar max does..if its a weak one, we probably cool in the camp of -0.2C by 2020..in my perspective.

2020-2035 sees both the -AMO/-PDO if current estimated extraplolating anoms are correct, so the most significant cooling...if it were to commence, would occur in that timeframe.

Again, I feel the solar constant/Magnetic Flux will hold the key as to whether we drop to mid 1970's levels, or something more divergent in either direction.

[Clifford]

Public Opinion on Climate Change

http://en.wikipedia...._climate_change

I would have to think that there would be a few co-factors in the climate change...

Especially what one expects their personal impact to be.

For example, the HOTTER countries probably are more concerned with global warming than the more temperate countries.

Likewise, I'd anticipate those living in low lying areas to have a higher concern.

Thus, I'm not surprised to see Italy, and Portugal leading Europe with expectations of a "serious threat". Actually, I'm surprised that Holland doesn't rank higher.

I would imagine that if one broke down the public opinion in the USA, Florida and Hawaii would lead the nation for opinion of a "serious threat".

I'd rank Minnesota as relatively low on the concern for getting a dose of warmer weather... especially about this time of year.

Australia shares a lot in common with the Sahara. I'm not too surprised they rank high in the concerns about global warming.

[Mencken_Fan]

Guess who moderates the climate-related topics on Wikipedia, and has been banned several times

Did you hear...almost 32,000 american scientists reject the AGW theory? And this is just the US

http://www.petitionproject.org/

RED FLAG! ALARM! RED FLAG!

An alarm went off in my head the instant I saw "32,000 American Scientists"; so I checked out the site...and here is what I found:

"Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines."

That loosely defined list encompasses one heck of a lot of people!

With research I discover 84,000,000 Americans have college degrees.

Therefore: the list of "American Scientists" who reject AGW equates to 1 of every 2,625 college educated Americans. If we reduce that to those educated "primarily in science, engineering, or related disciplines" the ratio decreases but would still be fantastic.

The nominal figure of 32,000 sounds impressive....until it's put in perspective.

Furthermore, being it's college educated Americans, it's probably loaded with religious conservatives. I can just see that list zooming around the right-wing forwarded mail asylum (the crap my sister forwards me is stunning,) It's probably handed out to every grad at Liberty University!

If it were possible to somehow eliminate from that list the people with poor reasoning skills, I bet it would shrivel far deeper into the abyss it already resides in.

Even though I don't have one, I honestly do appreciate the work it takes to get a college degree, but if anyone thinks a degree equates to superior thinking or analytical skills I would suggest they're mistaken. In fact, very recent research shows critical thinking skills of American college graduates are barely improved over the high school level. I would add further the lack of critical thinking skills in our high schools is the singular reason European students blow us away. (We teach rote memorization; Europeans teach critical thinking.)

And from my personal experience over the last several decades, I can assure you there are many college grads who can't think their way out of a paper bag.

Your point fails my smell test.

[WeatherRusty]

RED FLAG! ALARM! RED FLAG!

An alarm went off in my head the instant I saw "32,000 American Scientists"; so I checked out the site...and here is what I found:

"Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines."

That loosely defined list encompasses one heck of a lot of people!

With research I discover 84,000,000 Americans have college degrees.

Therefore: the list of "American Scientists" who reject AGW equates to 1 of every 2,625 college educated Americans. If we reduce that to those educated "primarily in science, engineering, or related disciplines" the ratio decreases but would still be fantastic.

The nominal figure of 32,000 sounds impressive....until it's put in perspective.

Furthermore, being it's college educated Americans, it's probably loaded with religious conservatives. I can just see that list zooming around the right-wing forwarded mail asylum (the crap my sister forwards me is stunning,) It's probably handed out to every grad at Liberty University!

If it were possible to somehow eliminate from that list the people with poor reasoning skills, I bet it would shrivel far deeper into the abyss it already resides in.

Even though I don't have one, I honestly do appreciate the work it takes to get a college degree, but if anyone thinks a degree equates to superior thinking or analytical skills I would suggest they're mistaken. In fact, very recent research shows critical thinking skills of American college graduates are barely improved over the high school level. I would add further the lack of critical thinking skills in our high schools is the singular reason European students blow us away. (We teach rote memorization; Europeans teach critical thinking.)

And from my personal experience over the last several decades, I can assure you there are many college grads who can't think their way out of a paper bag.

Your point fails my smell test.

The Oregon Petition is a total sham.

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.

Read More About It Here

[BethesdaWX]

RED FLAG! ALARM! RED FLAG!

An alarm went off in my head the instant I saw "32,000 American Scientists"; so I checked out the site...and here is what I found:

"Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines."

That loosely defined list encompasses one heck of a lot of people!

With research I discover 84,000,000 Americans have college degrees.

Therefore: the list of "American Scientists" who reject AGW equates to 1 of every 2,625 college educated Americans. If we reduce that to those educated "primarily in science, engineering, or related disciplines" the ratio decreases but would still be fantastic.

The nominal figure of 32,000 sounds impressive....until it's put in perspective.

Furthermore, being it's college educated Americans, it's probably loaded with religious conservatives. I can just see that list zooming around the right-wing forwarded mail asylum (the crap my sister forwards me is stunning,) It's probably handed out to every grad at Liberty University!

If it were possible to somehow eliminate from that list the people with poor reasoning skills, I bet it would shrivel far deeper into the abyss it already resides in.

Even though I don't have one, I honestly do appreciate the work it takes to get a college degree, but if anyone thinks a degree equates to superior thinking or analytical skills I would suggest they're mistaken. In fact, very recent research shows critical thinking skills of American college graduates are barely improved over the high school level. I would add further the lack of critical thinking skills in our high schools is the singular reason European students blow us away. (We teach rote memorization; Europeans teach critical thinking.)

And from my personal experience over the last several decades, I can assure you there are many college grads who can't think their way out of a paper bag.

Your point fails my smell test.

Thats fine, we have all these

850 peer reviewed papers supporting AGW skepticism.

All criticisms of this list have been refuted or a change made to correct the issue. Please see the notes following the list for defenses of common criticisms.

http://www.popularte...supporting.html

A few months ago, over 1000 climate scientists, some former IPCC workers (lol), turned against the AGW theory...aka, became skeptics. Just 1 month, 1 example, of many. This is a sniff at the real issue. http://wattsupwithth...e-un-ipcc-gore/

If you want more, just ask.

Remember what rapid climate change is...it happens all the time

There is no evidence we are warming the planet...all we have is the correlation between CO2 and a warming trend...and there are other things that correlate better. Funny.