The new "warm" Chicago!

[meteorologist]

http://www.nytimes.c...adaptation.html

[WeatherRusty]

http://www.nytimes.c...adaptation.html

Nice to see this municipality taking climate change science seriously. Let's hope it becomes part of a growing trend in the face of plausible deniability .

[A-L-E-K]

sounds pretty silly to me, Baton Rouge, come on now.

[BethesdaWX]

in the face of plausible deniability .

hmm, what else has blown up in the fact of warmist "plausible deniability".....? Uhh, how about global temperatures, to start

[superjames1992]

Baton Rouge?

[tacoman25]

Nice to see this municipality taking climate change science seriously. Let's hope it becomes part of a growing trend in the face of plausible deniability .

How about plausible reality? I wonder how many of the deep South swamp trees they're planting around Chicago will make it through harsh Midwestern winters? And I love how this article conveniently cites tornadoes as one of the "extreme weather events" expected to increase with global warming (why didn't we hear about this until this "year of the tornado"?). Once again, hype triumphs over real facts in the media.

[nzucker]

How about plausible reality? I wonder how many of the deep South swamp trees they're planting around Chicago will make it through harsh Midwestern winters? And I love how this article conveniently cites tornadoes as one of the "extreme weather events" expected to increase with global warming (why didn't we hear about this until this "year of the tornado"?). Once again, hype triumphs over real facts in the media.

I love the NY TImes but this was one of the poorest pieces they've published. Read it this morning before work and was shocked to see this drivel about swamp gum trees being planted in the Windy City, 70+ 90-degree days during every Chicago summer, and other such nonsense.

Watch them take out all the native vegetation since we "know" what the temperature will be in Chicago in 100 years

[skierinvermont]

It's a little hyped. The baton rouge quote is basically a worst case scenario and is most likely based on a comparison of current # of 90 degree days in Baton Rouge to expected # in Chicago. Of course that doesn't say anything about winter or climate as a whole. if you read on they say the hardiness zone becomes like Birmingham Alabama which sounds a little more realistic than Baton Rouge. And of course I'm assuming that's still for the high-emissions scenario.

They're basically saying the climate will be like Baton Rouge but failing to mention (at least in the beginning) that this is based solely on # of 90 degree days and is the high emissions scenario. Doesn't say anything about winter climate, or a more moderate or low emissions scenario.

[tomspy77]

As the region warms, Chicago is expecting more frequent and extreme storms. In the last three years, the city has had two intense storms classified as 100-year events. ]

For reasons of my own does anyone have any clue what events the article is referring to by chance?

Thanks..

[nzucker]

It's a little hyped. The baton rouge quote is basically a worst case scenario and is most likely based on a comparison of current # of 90 degree days in Baton Rouge to expected # in Chicago. Of course that doesn't say anything about winter or climate as a whole. if you read on they say the hardiness zone becomes like Birmingham Alabama which sounds a little more realistic than Baton Rouge. And of course I'm assuming that's still for the high-emissions scenario.

Chicago hardiness zones like Birmingham AL? Chicago is currently at the cold end of Zone 5, whereas Birmingham is in the middle of Zone 7. Zone 7 implies that Chicago will never see a sub-zero temperature in any winter.

EDIT: One of the things I don't like about this USDA map is that most of Montana's High Line is in Zone 3 or Zone 4, which implies that the coldest winter temperatures do not go below -40F....However, I have lived in Montana and observed their weather closely, and I know that places like Havre or Browning with 2000-3000' elevation in the Prairies can easily hit -50F or colder in an arctic outbreak when 850s are like -30C.

[nzucker]

It's a little hyped. The baton rouge quote is basically a worst case scenario and is most likely based on a comparison of current # of 90 degree days in Baton Rouge to expected # in Chicago. Of course that doesn't say anything about winter or climate as a whole. if you read on they say the hardiness zone becomes like Birmingham Alabama which sounds a little more realistic than Baton Rouge. And of course I'm assuming that's still for the high-emissions scenario.

They're basically saying the climate will be like Baton Rouge but failing to mention (at least in the beginning) that this is based solely on # of 90 degree days and is the high emissions scenario. Doesn't say anything about winter climate, or a more moderate or low emissions scenario.

It's still absurd to assume Chicago will have as many 90-degree days in the summer as Baton Rouge does today in the Mississippi Delta.

Chicago has much more access to cool airmasses from Canada in a -EPO or -NAO pattern, and Lake Michigan moderates temperatures during the summer when winds blow from the east. There's just so many reasons not to make this comparison, and yet one of the nation's "newspapers of record," and my personal favorite, stooped to this low level. They also neglected to mention that global temperatures have only been warming about .1C/decade since 1998, lower than most original estimates, so that it would beneficial to make hypotheses and policy about future climate/landscape based on the lower estimates of global warming.

[skierinvermont]

It's still absurd to assume Chicago will have as many 90-degree days in the summer as Baton Rouge does today in the Mississippi Delta.

Chicago has much more access to cool airmasses from Canada in a -EPO or -NAO pattern, and Lake Michigan moderates temperatures during the summer when winds blow from the east. There's just so many reasons not to make this comparison, and yet one of the nation's "newspapers of record," and my personal favorite, stooped to this low level. They also neglected to mention that global temperatures have only been warming about .1C/decade since 1998, lower than most original estimates, so that it would beneficial to make hypotheses and policy about future climate/landscape based on the lower estimates of global warming.

It's not the newspaper's fault for quoting a scientific prediction. It is the newspaper's fault for certain other elements of the writing style which are hyped (the two points I made above 1. not specifying initially this is the high emissions scenario and 2. saying the climate would become like baton rouge when this was really only based on # of 90 degree days, not year round climate).

So I can agree the newspaper is wrong for hyping based on #1 and #2. But I have no problem with the newspaper quoting a scientific prediction.

The scientific prediction of increased # of 90 degree days isn't an "assumption" it's a study and I would want to read said study before concluding it is "absurd."

[nzucker]

It's not the newspaper's fault for quoting a scientific prediction. It is the newspaper's fault for certain other elements of the writing style which are hyped (the two points I made above 1. not specifying initially this is the high emissions scenario and 2. saying the climate would become like baton rouge when this was really only based on # of 90 degree days, not year round climate.

So I can agree the newspaper is wrong for hyping based on #1 and #2. But I have no problem with the newspaper quoting a scientific prediction.

The scientific prediction of increased # of 90 degree days isn't an "assumption" it's a study and I would want to read said study before concluding it is wrong.

I think it is their fault...you are responsible for whom you quote and whether it sends a responsible message. For example, when I was a sports journalist, coaches sometimes made very negative comments about their team on-record at the end of a disappointing game, and yet I would frequently edit out the more extreme comments from a larger quote so as not to send the wrong message about youth sports and what's important, i.e. participating, not so much winning/losing. So I do think the New York Times could have chosen to omit some of the more doomsday predictions. Of course, it's equally the fault of the stupid urban planners who are planting these southern trees in Chicago just assuming the climate will warm a lot; The Times has to report accurately on the policy/planning/landscaping changes, so there's not too much that can be done there.

Also, global warming is not expected to affect summertime high temperatures nearly as much, so the number of 90-degree days wouldn't go up that much in a warming world. AGW is believed to have a much bigger effect on winter temperatures and on nighttime lows.

[skierinvermont]

Chicago hardiness zones like Birmingham AL? Chicago is currently at the cold end of Zone 5, whereas Birmingham is in the middle of Zone 7. Zone 7 implies that Chicago will never see a sub-zero temperature in any winter.

Well like I said it's still more reasonable than the Baton rouge comment which is 3 full hardiness zones warmer, instead of 2. Could Chicago warm 2 hardiness zones in a high emissions scenario?

I'm not really sure but I'd like to see the study.

I do know that Chicago winters would warm much more than global temperatures. In a high-emissions scenario the globe warms around 4C ... mid-latitudes might be 6C... mid-latitudes in winter might be 7C, and the coldest temp of the year might warm by 8C since low temps, especially the coldest nights, would be warmed the most.... so that is close to 2 hardiness zones by my ballpark estimate.

[skierinvermont]

I think it is their fault...you are responsible for whom you quote and whether it sends a responsible message. For example, when I was a sports journalist, coaches sometimes made very negative comments about their team on-record at the end of a disappointing game, and yet I would frequently edit out the more extreme comments from a larger quote so as not to send the wrong message about youth sports and what's important, i.e. participating, not so much winning/losing. So I do think the New York Times could have chosen to omit some of the more doomsday predictions. Of course, it's equally the fault of the stupid urban planners who are planting these southern trees in Chicago just assuming the climate will warm a lot; The Times has to report accurately on the policy/planning/landscaping changes, so there's not too much that can be done there.

Also, global warming is not expected to affect summertime high temperatures nearly as much, so the number of 90-degree days wouldn't go up that much in a warming world. AGW is believed to have a much bigger effect on winter temperatures and on nighttime lows.

Chicago city planners requested a climate study be done. The NYT then directly quoted this study and then explained some of the policy decisions being based off of that study. I don't see the problem there.

Like I said, I do object to certain other comments like the Baton Rouge comment, because it is not specified that 1. this is high emissions and 2. this is based on # of 90 degree days, not year-round climate. So I can see blaming the NYT for hyping in that regard. But I have no problem with the NYT quoting the study that was sponsored by Chicago city planners.

[WeatherRusty]

It's not the newspaper's fault for quoting a scientific prediction. It is the newspaper's fault for certain other elements of the writing style which are hyped (the two points I made above 1. not specifying initially this is the high emissions scenario and 2. saying the climate would become like baton rouge when this was really only based on # of 90 degree days, not year round climate).

So I can agree the newspaper is wrong for hyping based on #1 and #2. But I have no problem with the newspaper quoting a scientific prediction.

The scientific prediction of increased # of 90 degree days isn't an "assumption" it's a study and I would want to read said study before concluding it is "absurd."

The average annual temperature for Chicago is 49.0F. For Baton Rouge 67.7F.

Chicago like Baton Rouge seems very hard to believe. I find myself skeptical.

[nzucker]

Well like I said it's still more reasonable than the Baton rouge comment which is 3 full hardiness zones warmer, instead of 2. Could Chicago warm 2 hardiness zones in a high emissions scenario?

I'm not really sure I'd like to see the study.

I do know that Chicago winters would warm much more than global temperatures. In a high-emissions scenario the globe warms around 4C ... mid-latitudes might be 6C... mid-latitudes in winter might be 7C, and the coldest temp of the year might warm by 8C.... so that is close to 2 hardiness zones by my ballpark estimate.

I totally agree that absolute minimum temperatures would warm the most. It already seems that this is the case here, although it's hard to distinguish with UHI. It's been a long time since we've had real extreme cold in the NYC metro; I mean, it's not out of the question historically for Dobbs Ferry to hit -10F, or even -15F, in the winter, and yet that appears not to happen anymore. Part of this is urban development, part of this is the lack of bitter cold airmasses in winter. You look at some of the big arctic shots in the 1980s (December 1980, December 1983, January 1985), and you have a core of appx. -40C 850mb temps entering the USA. It seems to be rare that we see such cold nowadays.

But expecting the globe to warm 4C seems unreasonable given that the current rate of warming is only around .1C/decade, which is a decrease from the 1980s and 1990s. With global temperatures remaining stagnant, we're going to need a lot of warming to get to the higher estimates...and I'm not necessarily one to believe the "heat is in the pipeline." At some point you just have to admit the higher projections won't verify. It's especially convincing to me given that natural factors haven't even supported as much cooling as they could...we only had a real spotless solar cycle for a couple years starting in 2008, we haven't seen a long string of Nina like the 40s/50s, the AMO is raging positive, the pattern has been unsupportive of arctic ice gain until recently. Thus, it stands to reason that the warming rate could slow more by 2015 or 2020 if we have the -AMO/-PDO in concert with low solar activity and more volcanic eruptions in Iceland like we've witnessed.

[skierinvermont]

The average annual temperature for Chicago is 49.0F. For Baton Rouge 67.7F.

Chicago like Baton Rouge seems very hard to believe. I find myself skeptical.

Exactly.. that's my point. They're saying that based on # of 90 degree days solely. Not annual average temperature.

That says nothing about overnight lows or winter temps, which would continue to be much cooler than in Baton Rouge.

And of course, they didn't specify that this is based on a high-emissions scenario. The NYT definitely should have been clearer they were talking about the high-emissions scenario, and # of 90 degree days NOT annual average temp.

Take a look at Baton Rouge vs Chicago summer temps.. the difference should be much smaller than annual average temps.

[skierinvermont]

But expecting the globe to warm 4C seems unreasonable given that the current rate of warming is only around .1C/decade, which is a decrease from the 1980s and 1990s.

4C in a high-emissions scenario is the mainstream scientific consensus. I'm not going to blame the NYT for quoting the mainstream scientific consensus, even if I happen to agree more with some of the more conservative scientists. You're basically asking the reporter at the NYT to become a scientist and argue against the mainstream science. I'm much more comfortable with scientists with PhDs and peer-review doing science than reporters with english majors.

[nzucker]

4C in a high-emissions scenario is the mainstream scientific consensus. I'm not going to blame the NYT for quoting the mainstream scientific consensus, even if I happen to agree more with some of them ore conservative scientists.

I just think they should have acknowledged in the paragraph about climate skepticism that global temperatures haven't been warming as fast as expected. Kaufman writes, "Across America and in Congress, the very existence of climate change continues to be challenged--especially by conservatives...Yet, even as the debate rages on, city and state planners are beginning to prepare." She could have qualified the hyperbole in the article's lead by saying that skeptics contesting that the globe is warming more slowly than expected are supported by the majority of data, especially the satellites. She could have mentioned that the City's actions weren't necessarily justified by the current warming rate of approximately .1C/decade. That's what I would have done as a journalist to make the article more balanced.

The article is very one-sided...it starts off with "The Windy City is preparing for a heat wave--a permanent one. Chicago will feel more like Baton Rouge than a northern metropolis before the end of this century." First of all, as you say, the comparison with Baton Rouge is inappropriate because the study was about 90-degree temperatures, not other climate variables such as snowfall and winter minima, which will continue to distinguish Chicago as a "northern metropolis." A professional journalist should know not to extend the findings of a very specific study into a general commentary when such extension is misleading, in this case probably deliberately misleading because the NY Times has always been on the extreme AGW side of the debate. Also, writing that Chicago is on track for a permanent heat wave sounds alarming, since a heat wave is something that causes discomfort and suffering for residents. In a warmer world, the city's climate would probably produce less suffering in the form of fewer cold deaths, fewer accidents and falls due to snow/ice in streets/walkways, and yet only the image of a heat wave is used to incite this idea of discomfort from climate change.

Kaufman also says, "A private risk assessment firm was hired, and the resulting report read like an urban disaster film minus Godzilla." Huh? This is journalism? Weak for a top paper.

[skierinvermont]

I believe this is the report commissioned by the city on climate:

http://www.chicagoclimateaction.org/filebin/pdf/report/Chicago_climate_impacts_report_Chapter_Two_Climate.pdf

there are several chapters but this seems to be the relevant one.

[skierinvermont]

I just think they should have acknowledged in the paragraph about climate skepticism that global temperatures haven't been warming as fast as expected. Kaufman writes, "Across America and in Congress, the very existence of climate change continues to be challenged--especially by conservatives...Yet, even as the debate rages on, city and state planners are beginning to prepare." She could have qualified the hyperbole in the article's lead by saying that skeptics contesting that the globe is warming more slowly than expected are supported by the majority of data, especially the satellites. She could have mentioned that the City's actions weren't necessarily justified by the current warming rate of approximately .1C/decade. That's what I would have done as a journalist to make the article more balanced.

Skeptics are not supported by the majority of the data and a journalist with an English or journalism major should not be asked to contradict the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists.

[nzucker]

Skeptics are not supported by the majority of the data and a journalist with an English or journalism major should not be asked to contradict the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists.

I would say being skeptical of the warming rate, rather than the absolute idea of the globe warming, does have data support.

More support than >4C of warming anyway.

[tacoman25]

Well like I said it's still more reasonable than the Baton rouge comment which is 3 full hardiness zones warmer, instead of 2. Could Chicago warm 2 hardiness zones in a high emissions scenario?

I'm not really sure but I'd like to see the study.

I do know that Chicago winters would warm much more than global temperatures. In a high-emissions scenario the globe warms around 4C ... mid-latitudes might be 6C... mid-latitudes in winter might be 7C, and the coldest temp of the year might warm by 8C since low temps, especially the coldest nights, would be warmed the most.... so that is close to 2 hardiness zones by my ballpark estimate.

Certainly no evidence of any of this yet.

[tacoman25]

Skeptics are not supported by the majority of the data and a journalist with an English or journalism major should not be asked to contradict the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists.

Once again, you can't lump all skeptics together. What viewpoint exactly is not supported by the data?

By the way, Weather Rusty has labeled himself a skeptic as well, so...

[skierinvermont]

I would say being skeptical of the warming rate, rather than the absolute idea of the globe warming, does have data support.

More support than >4C of warming anyway.

The fact that warming has been around .12C/decade since 1998 doesn't mean skeptics like Anthony Watts have more support than mainstream scientists. As i've said before, in my opinion, it lends evidence to some of the lower scientific predictions (2C vs 3C for A1B, 3C vs 4C vs A2), but I certainly wouldn't hold a reporter responsible for making that argument.

[skierinvermont]

Once again, you can't lump all skeptics together. What viewpoint exactly is not supported by the data?

Less than 1C or 1.5C of warming for an A1B scenario I would use the label "skeptic"... of course it would be better to stop using these labels. 1 or 1.5C to 2C I would label lukewarmer... and 2-5C "consensus."

[tacoman25]

The fact that warming has been around .12C/decade since 1998 doesn't mean skeptics like Anthony Watts have more support than mainstream scientists. As i've said before, in my opinion, it lends evidence to some of the lower scientific predictions (2C vs 3C for A1B, 3C vs 4C vs A2), but I certainly wouldn't hold a reporter responsible for making that argument.

Per one source. Lower with all others.

[skierinvermont]

Certainly no evidence of any of this yet.

I believe higher latitudes have warmed faster than lower latitudes. Not so sure about winter or nighttime temps.

[skierinvermont]

Per one source. Lower with all others.

No, GISS, UAH, HadCRUT+UAH poles, and perhaps some of the radiosonde sources as well all show .1C+ since 1998.