The new "warm" Chicago!

[tacoman25]

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."

How about those of us that feel assigning numbers with such uncertainty is kind of foolish at this point? And that the most extreme scenarios will almost certainly be wrong, based mostly on the fact that extreme predictions rarely pan out?

[tacoman25]

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

I thought we had determined that UAH showed .07-.08C/decade since 1998? HadCRUT+UAH is not an official, scientific, peer-reviewed source.

[tacoman25]

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

The highest latitudes of the NH have certainly warmed faster over the past 30 years. Beyond that, I don't believe there is much evidence of Chicago's climate moving in that direction. The Upper Midwest had a very warm stretch of winters in the late 1990s/early 2000s...but then the PDO phase flipped and they've been much colder since.

[meteorologist]

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

http://www.chicagocl...Two_Climate.pdf

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

Nice find!

This also may be of interest:

http://www.chicagoclimateaction.org/pages/ccap_frequently_asked_questions/89.php

[skierinvermont]

The highest latitudes of the NH have certainly warmed faster over the past 30 years. Beyond that, I don't believe there is much evidence of Chicago's climate moving in that direction. The Upper Midwest had a very warm stretch of winters in the late 1990s/early 2000s...but then the PDO phase flipped and they've been much colder since.

Chicago has warmed something like 1.2C in 50 or 60 years... much more than the globe.

[Clifford]

Time to cancel all the snowplow orders.

And begin selling off the fleet of snowplows (based on the future prediction).

It is interesting from the NY Times article:

Among the ideas rejected, Ms. Malec-McKenna said, were plans to immediately shut down local coal-powered energy plants — too much cost for too little payback.

The biggest change I can see is evaluating their power grid for the incorporation of electric vehicles and plug-in-hybrids, as well as anticipating higher AC usage and less heating.

[BethesdaWX]

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.

Although I know you probably won't read this, ......Your analysis is superficial. You need to remove more than just ENSO

There is clear evidence, the excess warming since 1998 is due to overall lower GCC through 2005, No uptick since...as evidenced by short/high reso BE^10 (berillium) proxy data beforehand, which can be extended to very recent times to where they are almost not even "proxies" anymore. Just a 2% chance in GCC = 1.2W/m^2 additional heat, and is reflected in the heating profile on Satellites, from "near surface" to the upper troposhere, which the most significant warming has manifested at the surface, or "near surface layer", while you get into the heart of the LT the warming rate has been lower. This is exactly what you'd expect to see from decreasing GCC, and there is no way around it! If you look short term and superficial, then you won't see the system correctly. You can see a >5% Dip based on the methods above...so yes, thats gonna warm us.

Its like, if I wanted to boil a pot of water, I turn the flame on medium and don't change it...the water would warm to match equilibrium, even if I decreased the Flame! The same thing goes here, to match equilibrium which is long term, the earth will warm even if GCC stops dropping, or increases slightly. Because equilibrium is an extended process, this is just how it works.

So there you have it.

[tacoman25]

Chicago has warmed something like 1.2C in 50 or 60 years... much more than the globe.

-PDO to +PDO (until the last few years). That right there is going to favor a significant warming trend over the past 50-60 years. Since the beginning of 2008, Chicago's temperature has been pretty close to what it was in the previous -PDO phase.

[skierinvermont]

-PDO to +PDO (until the last few years). That right there is going to favor a significant warming trend over the past 50-60 years. Since the beginning of 2008, Chicago's temperature has been pretty close to what it was in the previous -PDO phase.

Chicago has a large 100+ year warming trend which is greater than the global warming trend.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/animations/a10_1881_1998_6fps.mov

[tacoman25]

Chicago has a large 100+ year warming trend which is greater than the global warming trend.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/animations/a10_1881_1998_6fps.mov

Link isn't working for me...but regardless, the fact that 1976-2007 was +PDO weights towards a greater warming trend, since most of the last 35 years were +PDO.

Also, as is the case with any individual city, it is important to look into siting changes. I don't know the exact history of Chicago sites, but I do remember a poster from there mentioning there has been a site change or two in the past 100 years...which of course can effect longterm trends.

[A-L-E-K]

Chicago has a large 100+ year warming trend which is greater than the global warming trend.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/animations/a10_1881_1998_6fps.mov

meh, UHI and moving the station away from the lake probably play into this.

[michsnowfreak]

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.

I LITERALLY lol'd at this article. It reminds me SO much of an article I read back in the late 1990s about the "future" climate of Michigan and what global warming was going to do to the state. DTW has a very similar climate to ORD. The article that I read some 12-13 years ago (Im paraphrasing as I didnt save a copy of the nonsense (though I shouldve for laughs) and cant find it online anymore) had the comparison that by the mid 21st century, southern Michigan winters would resemble present-day Kentucky and southern MI summers would resemble present-day Alabama/Georgia. It was comical to say the least. They talked about how quickly summers would start to heat up on the way to these Georgia-like summers in the next 50 years (much like they implied Chicago may go from seeing 15 or less 90F+ days to 70+ days per year)..and GUESS WHAT...the very next decade after this RIDICULOUS story came out we ended up seeing the LEAST amount of summer heat in almost a century!

Total 90F+ days per decade at Detroit, MI

1900s- 56

1910s- 107

1920s- 100

1930s- 169

1940s- 160

1950s- 154

1960s- 111

1970s- 119

1980s- 127

1990s- 123

2000s- 102

And winters would become like Kentucky!? HA! We have one hell of a long way to go in the next 40-years to see THAT happen. Rather than seeing our winters turn into KY winters, we are breaking snowfall records left and right almost every winter lately. Some recent winters in southern MI have actually started to resemble winters more like northern MI. (Some of the global warmingistas have now all of a sudden started seeing so many places seeing so much snowfall that they have pointed out why that is of course due to GW, and occurring right along schedule, though they werent saying anything CLOSE to this over a decade ago...back then they said snowmobiling would become an extinct sport for many).

Its one thing to have a general stance on what, if any, change future weather patterns will have on certain areas. But when someone has the audacity to predict such ridiculous numbers that are in no way shape or form coming CLOSE to being realized or even starting a trend to becoming somewhat realized, and then some people are actually talking about changing species of trees because of this "change", its so ridiculous its sad. If Chicagos past data matches Detroits, then I can attest that summers are NOWHERE NEAR as hot now as they were in the 1930s-1950s, so if the trees survived then, why in a rush to change things now?

[michsnowfreak]

meh, UHI and moving the station away from the lake probably play into this.

EXACTLY! The ones who try to paint these outlandish warming scenarios are so worried about every tenth of a degree, but Ill be damn if theyve EVER taken UHI into account for anything. Ive noticed, as many others have also, UHI really seems to affect low temps the most.

Bottom line is this, no two winters or summers are ever the same, but Chicagos general climate (warm, humid summers and cold fairly snowy winters) has not changed in the last 100 years, and will probably be the same 100 years from now.

[BethesdaWX]

EXACTLY! The ones who try to paint these outlandish warming scenarios are so worried about every tenth of a degree, but Ill be damn if theyve EVER taken UHI into account for anything. Ive noticed, as many others have also, UHI really seems to affect low temps the most.

Bottom line is this, no two winters or summers are ever the same, but Chicagos general climate (warm, humid summers and cold fairly snowy winters) has not changed in the last 100 years, and will probably be the same 100 years from now.

UHI is taken into account Actually when considering the global anomaly, but for individual stations the data is not adjusted for it. Moving the Station is another story...As for the Article itself..... its a bunch of alarmist propaganda really, its not going to happen. I'm starting to hear everyday now when walking downtown, when the weather is Cold, people are saying "Must be global warming!", same when its hot, dry, or windy. "Global warming" is being mocked constantly these days...and I live in a democratic area.

Global Warming could be a serious issue, or it could not be an issue at all, but what needs to happen first is for alarmism to leave the field...we need objectivity and well funded research on the topic and how to better our models, projections regarding emissions, and the pricing for alternatives.................not Al Gore and his "inconvenient truth"... because its literally killing the Theory. I mean, look at what is happening to the Carbon Market...Kyoto is Dead really............. You have no clue how many times I see "Temps warming faster than expected", or, "Its worse than we thought"....... Not only is that not true...., but it gets to the point where its a blatant lie! These crackheads need to STFU before they crash their own Theory before Nature does.....Just my view.

[tornadotony]

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

Thanks..

I think they're probably making mention of the 8/23/07 and 8/4/08 derechos, but I'm not certain.